Is Being In the Same BitTorrent "Swarm" Equal To "Interacting"?

Posted by Unknown on Friday June 29, 2012 @12:00PM from the my-closest-friends-are-ip-addresses dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In the new wave of bittorrent downloading cases, the plaintiffs' lawyers like to lump a number of 'John Does' together in the same case in order to avoid filing fees ($350 a pop). Their excuse for 'joinder' is the allegation that the defendants 'interacted' with each other by reason of the fact that their torrents may have emanated from the same 'swarm.' In Malibu Media v. Does 1-5, when John Doe #4 indicated his intention to move for severance, the Court asked the lawyers to address the 'swarm' issue in their papers. So when John Doe #4 filed his or her motion to quash, sever, and dismiss, he filed a detailed memorandum of law (PDF) analyzing the 'swarm' theory in detail. What do you think?"

1 of 166 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:Sounds a little hokey by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 12:14 · Score: 5, Interesting

That's not the same thing as a swarm though. You make it sound like people were prosecuted because their neighbours used BT, that's on the same cable too.
A swarm is more like a conference call. You share the same line, but you also pass data between each other. As much as I hate the *AA litigation - I think the interaction thing holds up. How the hell else are you going to download from / upload to a swarm if not by interacting with it?