Federal Judge Quashed Mass Litigation SubpoenasAdded: Wednesday, October 6th, 2010
Category: Bit Torrent Freedom > The Industries Of Records, Gaming, Software, Movies
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
American Magistrate Judge said that subpoena submitted by the anti-piracy outfit USCG (US Copyright Group) doesn’t comply with federal guidelines defining the geographic considerations of how such subpoenas must be approached. According to the rules, the judge noted that users targeted in that mass litigation reside outside DC, where subpoena was obtained.
The attempt of the USCG, acting on behalf of the producers of the famous “The Hurt Locker” movie, to sue thousands of file-sharers for unauthorized downloads of the film is taking another round. A judge with the District Court of South Dakota decided to quash the USCG’s subpoena which required a South Dakota ISP to reveal the names of alleged infringers.
The anti-piracy law firm filed the lawsuits in a DC courtroom several months ago, in May. Since then Internet service providers and others have been refusing to share its belief that the DC court does have jurisdiction over the alleged users. The USCG explains it by the fact that BitTorrent protocol differs significantly in its architecture from the older P2P protocols, as the file-sharers create torrent tracker in order to essentially make a network devoted to sharing one specific file. Thus, such joint series of transactions can justify the inclusion of tens of thousands individuals in a single lawsuit.
Many outfits, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Citizen, were quick to argue in briefs sent to the same DC courtroom that the IPs mentioned in the USCG’s subpoena can provide a general geographic area for the alleged individuals, thus proving that the court doesn’t have any jurisdiction over them.
The first ISP that received this subpoena several weeks ago was Mid continent Communications. It immediately filed a motion to quash it, claiming that its customer base doesn’t include the DC area, which means it lies outside the DC court’s jurisdiction. Besides, the service provider complained that the law firm won’t justly compensate it for the hard work made for identifying the alleged infringers. US Magistrate Judge agreed with the ISP, admitting that the USCG’s subpoena didn’t comply with the Federal rules. Moreover, it was improperly submitted by fax, while service should be delivered either by registered mail or personally.
The USCG hasn’t responded to the ruling yet.
October 6th, 2010Posted by:
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010
|I damn near fell over backwards in my chair reading this.|
As I posted before the law suites are and have to filed in the defendants resident area. I had to do this with a crook pawn shop in another state so it was beyond me how these puke lawyers didn't have to abide by that requirement.
Now a judge just confirms what I previously posted and some common sense is starting to come out of all this legal extortion by the RIAA and MPAA via lawyers who are the ones who are really getting the money not the "artists"...
|(((((AMEN)))))) to that you're so right menahunie|
|posted by (2010-10-07 03:48:58)|
|they fax'd all those documents?? wow... talk about cheap + lazy||
Most Popular Stories