US Judge Ordered Alleged File-Sharers to Identify ThemselvesAdded: Thursday, October 7th, 2010
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Ridiculous Criminal Trials
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
District Court Judge handed out a decision that forty suspected infringers couldn’t proceed anonymously in this case, and therefore were required to provide their personal details to the court by the end of the month, all this regardless the fact that the accused users may reside outside the court’s jurisdiction.
News surfaced recently, related to the mass litigation the US Copyright Group had launched against tens of thousands of BitTorrent users which it accused of unauthorized downloads of the pirated copies of “The Hurt Locker” movie. Now the story continues walking around US courtrooms.
It was just a few days ago when another judge of the US District Court of South Dakota decided to quash a subpoena that was issued by a DC courtroom. The subpoena demanded a South Dakota Internet service provider to reveal the identities of alleged file-sharers. Shortly after this, another judge for the same District Court of the District of Columbia handed out an opposite ruling for another 40 suspected infringers, demanding them to identify themselves.
Earlier in September forty of the several thousand of defendants mentioned in one of the lawsuits filed by the USCG had asked a judge to quash a subpoena demanding to reveal their personal details, arguing that they can’t all be enjoined in one lawsuit, because most of them simply reside outside of the court’s jurisdiction.
However, U.S. District Court Judge refused to quash the subpoena, though she didn’t address their arguments. Judge only decided that the accused users can’t proceed anonymously in this case, because this kind of litigation is only permitted in case of sensitive or personal issues, but it doesn’t apply to this case.
Still, the same judge ruled earlier in September that the USCG has to make a convincing case in writing explaining why its claims against individuals not residing in the DC area should not be dismissed. She said at the time that those defendants lived outside of Washington, DC – in Pennsylvania, for example, or in Oregon. As they live elsewhere, it’s questionable whether they have had sufficient contact with the area in question (District of Columbia) to warrant the exercise of the court to have personal jurisdiction over them. But after the court gets the names of the accused in hand, it won’t matter where the case is tried.
October 7th, 2010Posted by:
Thursday, October 7th, 2010
|posted by (2010-10-07 16:44:44)|
|Makes perfect sense to me, thanks Sam|
|posted by (2010-10-07 23:55:35)|
|Yup... Ignore them...if I was one of the 40....|
|id ignore them, open a public proxy(temporarily). Counter sue them for trying to illegally prosecute me without any evidence, provide evidence of the proxy stating anyone could use it for "File Sharing".|
and watch the fireworks start...
Most Popular Stories