Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Rules BitTorrent Cases Must Be Tried Separately

Posted by Soulskill on from the enjoy-your-filing-fees dept.

PhrostyMcByte writes: "TorrentFreak reports that Federal Judge Stephanie Rose recently put a thorn in the plans of copyright holders hoping to file cheap mass-lawsuits against alleged pirates. Rejecting all but one Doe for such a lawsuit, Rose's order mentions that the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the five Does in the case were a part of the same 'transaction' needed to be tried together, with an uncommon understanding of BitTorrent showing that '... even in all five cases where Doe defendants allegedly have "hit dates" on the same day and close in time, there is no showing that the earlier defendants were still connected to the Internet and actively distributing data through the BitTorrent client at the same time as the later defendants.'"

7 of 60 comments (clear)

  1. Well thats a first by MCROnline · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All we need now is prosecutions based on real losses and not imaginary figures pulled out the air by lawyers.

    1. Re:Well thats a first by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If only they pulled them out of the air. They actually pull them out of their asses.

    2. Re:Well thats a first by kruach+aum · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The interesting thing is that there are no real losses in the case of bit-torrent, because the projections of losses are based on counterfactuals (if x had not downloaded y then...), i.e. possible worlds that are not the actual one. As long as the ontological status of possible worlds is not settled, the reality of the losses is not settled, and so being prosecuted for torrenting based on the supposed losses you have caused someone is no different from being prosecuted for imagined murder, or imaginary pickpocketing.

      If David Lewis were still alive the RIAA/MPAA would be writing him such a massive fucking research grant cheque right now.

  2. Looking at this another way... by StripedCow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This judge just assured himself and his lawyer friends of income for the rest of their lives...

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    1. Re:Looking at this another way... by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Funny

      While I have a well earned disdain for lawyers, I see nothing wrong with having 4 lawyers and a judge entangled in a meaningless duel until they all die.

      From the specifics of this story, I do want the defense attorneys to win the vast majority of similar cases, but anything that keeps more of the feral lawyer population away from defenseless civilians is a good thing in my mind. My apologies to those who will be caught up as defendants in this nonsense, but remember that your suffering in the company of these creatures is time that they won't be threatening others with their cancerous philosophy.

      Oh, sure, it's quite comfy under this bus. Come join us.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    2. Re:Looking at this another way... by Warbothong · · Score: 4, Funny

      This judge just assured himself and his lawyer friends of income for the rest of their lives...

      Since the summary specifically says 'Federal Judge Stephanie Rose', are you assuming the first payments will be going towards gender-reassignment surgery?

  3. How painful this is for the plaintiff... by gnasher719 · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you read the actual story, one out of 100 John Doe's in 5 cases complained to the court that they wanted a separate trial. The plaintiff then dismissed the case against that person with prejudice (in other words, gave up any chance to ever sue them again) to avoid the separate trial. Didn't work. The judge took it on himself to look at the complaint, even though John Doe wasn't part of the case anymore, applied it to all five cases not just the one that included John Doe, and now there are five cases against five John Does, and the plaintiff would have to open another 94 cases if they want to proceed. Which means paying about 20 more money for lawyers etc. Suddenly it's not a way to make money anymore.