Judge Prevents 23,322 Filesharing Does From Being Sued For Now

An anonymous reader writes "The Judge overseeing the US Copyright Group's lawsuit against 23,000 individuals sharing 'The Expendables' has shut the door on progress. In a ruling made yesterday, the judge has ordered the US Copyright Group to show cause as to how all 23,322 fall under his Court's jurisdiction. Considering the US Copyright Group's failure in the past to show cause on jurisdiction, this could be the beginning of the end."

Comments

I Can Has Subject Title?

[wintercolby]

Pardon my ignorance, but can anyone say what "23,322 Filesharing Does" are?

Re:I Can Has Subject Title?

[The MAZZTer]

"John Doe" is a generic term for an unidentified or unknown individual, in this case shortened to "Doe".

Re:I Can Has Subject Title?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doe, a deer, a female deer.

Deer are notorious for running file sharing software, it's actually what got Bambi killed.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title?

[Harold Halloway]

Downloaders on a deer-to-deer file-sharing network.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title?

[betterunixthanunix]

Imagine how many bucks the MPAA could have made if it were not for these people.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title?

[cbiltcliffe]

Exactly my thought.

Bambi's sharing Disney movies on eMule!!

Re:I Can Has Subject Title?

[Paradise Pete]

If they asked for not only 100 male deer but also that many female pigs they could potentially cash in for as much as a hundred sows and bucks.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title?

[TeknoHog]

Just like "Peer" is a generic term for an unidentified Internet user in Norway.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title?

[WiglyWorm]

I get enough pun threads on Reddit. I come to slashdot because there's usually some semblance of intelligence.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title?

[Anrego]

It's actually not. They are refering to "John Doe" in a plural sense.

And I really don't like it. It completely screws up whatever part of the brain does language parsing. I practically get like a mini-headache every time I see "Does" used like that.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title?

[Anonymous Coward]

No he doesn't.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title?

[iluvcapra]

Went to a party recently, my director on Dance of the Dead remarked that both his features now were available on FilesTube!

When you actually know and work with the people who are supposed to get paid for this stuff, and your paycheck comes from that money too, it sorta rubs you a different way.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title?

[bmo]

Let's get something straight. You don't know me. Attributing things to me in your head because you are butthurt is just this side of nuts.

I don't pirate. I'm a Linux guy too, so I've gone as far as completely getting away from the "need" to pirate software just to have a functioning computer without being nickeled-and-dimed to death. It's gotten better over the years with movies too. Between Netflix and better selection of movies on demand through my cable operator, the "need" to pirate doesn't exist for me anymore. And there are more of us every day. Long gone are the days when buying a movie meant you had to shell out 99 bucks for something on VHS or Beta in late 1970 - early 80s dollars.

The market has come around to my needs (finally), and the needs of 90 percent of people out there with moderate disposable cash.

Download off of Filestube or torrent? Too much of a hassle. Seriously. It's like the old cartoon of someone giving up trying to download porn over a modem and just giving up and going to the corner store and buying a Playboy.

The only people who are torrenting and downloading over Filestube are people who don't have the cash to buy or rent a 3 year old movie anyway. Which brings me to the point of the futility of this lawsuit. This is clearly an abuse of the system against people who can't possibly pay the ridiculous out-of-proportion fine. The Expendables was a shitty movie and did poorly at the box office because it's a shitty movie. Trying to make up the difference by suing people is a combination of stupid and arrogance that all too often rears its head in this society. The only reason to follow through with such a thing is the mistaken belief that setting some sort of example is going to stop the tide of copyright infringement. Here's a clue, the only way to effectively end copyright infringement is to adjust to the market, as in my second paragraph up there. If I can sit on the couch and point the remote at the TV and get Dance of the Dead for a 99 cent rental, fuck torrents. Want me to watch it? Get Cox to carry it on pay-per-view.

Those that can't afford the dollar, well, they weren't going to give it to you anyway. There are always people who will hop the turnstile and you can't do a thing about it without looking like a goon (like this lawsuit).

So don't come in here all fucking high-and-mighty and say things about me that you don't know. Remove your head from your nether regions.

--
BMO

Re:I Can Has Subject Title?

[Arancaytar]

In any case, why "Doe"? It seems as though placeholders should be blander, more common names, like "Smith".

Of course, when you go up against 23,322 Smiths, you should make sure your attorney is Neo.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title?

[HiThere]

Personally I'd be just as happy if Hollywood died completely. I sure don't support ANY company, person, or organization that likes the current copyright laws, and especially not those ***** who bribed legislators to get the DMCA et seq. passed. This o but definitely included the RIAA & the MPAA, and ALL of their sponsors.

I *am* in favor of reasonable copyrights. Say 5-10 years. Even 20 would be acceptable. The current abuse is not defensible by any sane and fair person.

I do not think that piracy is a good. I should be a crime. But it's so much less an evil than the bribery of legislators that if I believed that it hurt the studios I'd be in favor of it. Those perpetrators (the studios, their decision making personnel, and their lobbyists, AND their co-conspirators) deserve to die a painful death. Well, so do those who took the bribes. I know, isn't going to happen except for a very few for totally unrelated reasons. But if the world were just it would.

The "pirates"? I don't think that those who do it non-commercially should even be considered criminals at all. I'm willing to be convinced, but not by someone who defends the current system. I can't trust them to have any morals at all, other than greed.

Ridiculous

[Lunaritian]

I wonder how many people they still will sue until they realize that piracy can't be stopped anymore except by shutting down the whole Internet.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Shutting down the whole internet wouldn't stop it either.

As if they want to stop file sharing?

[betterunixthanunix]

Damages awarded in lawsuits are so lucrative that people like USCG would never want to see an end to file sharing. Their business is making money by suing people, and they are getting bad directors like Uwe Boll on board. If people suddenly stopped sharing movies, USCG would go out of business, although they might try a few lawsuits anyway just to keep themselves propped up (e.g. people discussing a movie's script on a forum).

Re:As if they want to stop file sharing?

[UnknowingFool]

They only make money by keeping costs down. To keep costs down, the USCG takes shortcuts like suing a whole group instead of individuals. The filing fees saved are potentially in the millions. Unfortunately for them, that is not always proper. You can't lump people in groups for your own convenience; now they have to show that at they very least, that all 20,000 John Does are in the Court's jurisdiction.

The real crime was...

[bennomatic]

The real crime was making that movie. It was terrible. Predictable, trite, and itself a stitched-together copy of all the "hottest" moments of dozens of other successful action films.

The studio should be prosecuted for making such a bad movie. The people sharing it only committed the crime of making people think it was worth sharing. If there were 22,000 people sharing it, that means millions watched it, and thus the equivalent of at least a handful of human lifetimes evaporated in a puff of wasted time. Poof.

The essential irony is that the title of the movie should be a dead give-away. The whole thing was expendable.

Re:The real crime was...

[c]

Speaking of irony, it sounds like you actually watched the entire movie... you didn't give anyone actual money for that "privilege", did you?

Re:Great news

[erroneus]

That's where you are wrong. The 3-strikes, laws we keep hearing about would never pass in the US so easily. It is easier for the US government and US companies to influence foreign government than it is for the US government to influence its people.

In a way, it speaks well of the US people, not not really... we rolled right over when it came to terrorist laws didn't we? But worse than that -- saw a news story about certain parts of town where violent things have occurred. The news people played comments by people demanding more police and cameras and other measures to "keep us safe." So we still have a long way to go (or have slipped way too far down that slippery slope). You will find people of the US not worried about losing freedom, but they are worried about losing convenience!

Re:Woo! Hoo!

[cbiltcliffe]

Arrrrgghhh, start downloading, me mateys!

...

Start?

Re:What is the the Copyrights holders solution

[nedlohs]

They need to show that the people they are suing are under the jurisdiction of the court. Which should be pretty trivial, though of course in reality would mean filing a lot more suits in various courts instead of one big one.

Re:I'm a file sharer/downloader

[PIBM]

That`s what 90% of people think!

Re:What is the the Copyrights holders solution

[cbiltcliffe]

They can get past this step, if they do the legwork necessary.

The problem, as the judge sees, is that the rightsholders take every IP address, regardless of where it's located, and sue them all in one court, in order to get subscriber details from the ISPs involved. Well, the judge is basically saying, and rightfully, I would think, that someone who lives in North Carolina shouldn't be sued anonymously in California, just because the USCG has a buttload of lawsuits to file.

Basically, the USCG is trying to save money by filing all lawsuits together, rather than in the appropriate courts. The judge is saying they can't do this.

So basically...

[kaizendojo]

the lawsuit is in danger of suffering the same fate as the movie - falling into complete obscurity. Talk about self referential.

Crossley declaired bankrupt

[tttonyyy]

Pertinent to the story, just spotted this in the news:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/367885/acs-law-solicitor-is-bankrupt

Blackmailing filesharers didn't turn out to be the money-spinner he anticipated it to be...

Re:Crossley declaired bankrupt

[Vegemeister]

The word is comeuppance you dumbass.

Re:I'm a file sharer/downloader

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I get a sinking feeling, but then I realize it doesn't apply to me. Turns out, I don't download stuff other people like.

If it weren't for the MAFIAA, I would never have started watching foreign films. Early on I figured the risk of getting popped in the USA for downloading a Korean or Japanese film was pretty much null. So foreign films were pretty much all I watched for over half a decade. Turned me on to some really great cinema too.

Re:What is the the Copyrights holders solution

[bmo]

>They can get past this step, if they do the legwork necessary.

The thing is, they can't.

Because the court also vacated discovery. No more discovery. That's it. No more subpoenas will be written trying to attach an IP to a name.

They have to work with what they've got. Which ain't much. This dooms USCG, which I hate to type because it's also the initials for a worthwhile institution called the US Coast Guard

US Copyright Group was just told to go suck on lemons by the court.

--
BMO

Re:Great news

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

That's where you are wrong. The 3-strikes, laws we keep hearing about would never pass in the US so easily.

Until some Senator or Representative that's been bought ... er I mean to whose campaign the RIAA or MPAA contributed generously ... slips it into a 1500 page "flags for orphans of members of the armed forces killed in action" bill right next to the hundred other "trivialities" that other members of Congress have stuffed into the bill 15 minutes before the vote.

Re:What is the the Copyrights holders solution

[compro01]

The thing is, they can't.

Sure they can.

1. Run IPs through a geo-ip database.
2. File suits in the proper courts for each of the general locations indicated.
3. File subpoena for each case to the relevant ISP(s) for the accounts for each IP.

It's just work they don't want to do.

Working Properly?

[lymond01]

Isn't this how people want it to work? Don't sue the ISP or threaten the University. Go after the individual file sharers. And now that they're doing it, people are trying to stop the process? Ugh.

Musicians should go back to performing for money, rather than just selling their recordings. Too much hassle. :-)

Re:Class action results

[oh-dark-thirty]

Crazy like foxes...as you've also found in class actions, attorney's fees make up a disproportionate amount of the settlement. If anyone thinks these guys are doing this to protect and serve the rightsholders, they haven't been paying attention in class.

Watch the hand, no, no the other hand...

[Have Brain Will Rent]

I would wager that at this point copyright infringement lawsuits are being maintained as simple misdirection. Something to keep the opposition focussing its energy on the wrong target, or at least diverting significant portions of that energy to the wrong target. Meanwhile legislation is arriving which just makes the copyright owning companies able to do what they want in a much easier way. Magicians do it all the time.