Judge orders Time Warner to identify illegal downloaders

[sys-eng]

Time Warner Ordered to Hand Over IDs in Illegal Downloading Suit

Time Warner Ordered to Hand Over IDs in Illegal Downloading Suit
A Washington federal judge has ordered Time Warner to identify several hundred subscribers accused of illegally downloading movies, over the cable giant’s protests that the request is unfairly expensive and time-consuming.

U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell, in an opinion (PDF) issued yesterday, struck down Time Warner’s motion to quash the subpoenas for subscriber information in two of the three cases pending before the court, meaning Time Warner will have to come up with the identities of about 250 subscribers.

But Howell granted Time Warner’s motion in one of the suits because one of the movie companies, Maverick Entertainment Group of Deerfield Beach, Fla., failed to serve the subpoena in person; Howell wrote that while the company claims it faxed and e-mailed the subpoena, it failed the serve the subpoena in person as the law requires. That suit involves the largest group of defendants, so the error could cost the plaintiffs the identities of more than 700 Time Warner subscribers; the movie company has 10 days to re-issue the subpoena.

Time Warner is caught in the middle of ongoing litigation between three movie production companies - Maverick, Donkeyball Movie of Charlottesville, Va.,and Call of the Wild Movie in Eugene, Ore. - and thousands of anonymous Internet users. The three companies, which filed separate complaints that are similar except for the copyrighted material in question, allege the users violated copyright laws by sharing copies of their movies for free through a file-sharing site known as BitTorrent.

The companies collected thousands of Internet Protocol addresses for users they believe broke the law, but IP addresses don’t offer any information on a user’s name, address or other information. Time Warner was served with subpoenas to identify about 1,000 of its subscribers who are among the more than 5,500 anonymous users identified as defendants.

Time Warner, represented by Alexander Maltas of Washington’s Latham & Watkins, argued that the subpoenas were too burdensome. The corporation is already stretched complying with other requests, according to its motion, and the limited staff it has dedicated to digging up information behind IP addresses would not be able to comply with the request within a reasonable time frame.

Maltas declined to comment when reached by phone Wednesday. A Time Warner representative could not immediately be reached for comment.

Howell wrote that Time Warner had failed to prove its point, noting that other cable companies have been able to comply with similar requests and also that the plaintiffs have offered to pay for Time Warner to hire an additional employee to help.

She also disagreed with amicus briefs filed by several free speech groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation. Those groups argued that the anonymity of Internet users are protected by the First Amendment, even in certain cases involving copyright infringement.

“File-sharers are engaged in expressive activity, on some level, when they share files on BitTorrent, and their First Amendment rights must be considered,” Howell wrote. However, she wrote later on in the opinion, the "asserted First Amendment right to anonymity in this context does not shield them from allegations of copyright infringement."

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2...and-over-ids-in-illegal-downloading-suit.html

 

[Knightsman]

Wow! Great news for the movie companies, bad news for privacy and downloaders.

As much as I hate when people illegally download movies, songs, etc. This isn't the way to catch them.

 

[Xander]

Bad time to be an American downloader.

 

[Paul Rodgers]

Bad time to be an American downloader.

Bad time to be an American.

 

[Ccomp5950]

The lawyers sueing are performing a "reverse class action" suit.

Suing thousands of defendants who more than likely will not be within the jurisdiction of the court they are sued in for the sole purpose of discovery. Once discovery gives them names and addresses they drop the suit and then the real magic begins.

They then send "Pre-settlement" shake down letters demanding 4 figure to 5 figure amounts to avoid a lawsuit. A few porn industry companies are getting into it and finding good results (people don't want to have to go to court with the claim they are downloading "Man-Train 3: Here comes the Caboose" or worse "Far Cry"). The majority of Does listed are not actually being sued but are dropped and then served these pre-settlement shake down letters.

It's a new business model based around using the legal system to get your information. It worked in Germany, It didn't work so well in England with ACS:Law, Here in the US it's somewhat working

A good resource if you want the slant that is AGAINST such shake down attempts is techdirt

For it, good luck I don't know. Me personally I think each lawyer should have their license revoked because this "business" model they are using is (I believe) champerty

 

[eric76]

Bad time to be an American.

It's a bad time to be an American. Why is that?

 

[NETWizz]

Loss of freedoms, loss of civil rights, loss of constitutional rights. Increased taxation, devaluing of the Dollar as the reserve currency, super inflation, unemployment, deplorable economy, etc...

Whey else?

The whole country is going to the shitter.

 

[Ccomp5950]

I like how Microsoft is lobbying for 3rd party liability for companies that have suppliers overseas that might infringe.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011032316585825

I'd (hypothetically) love to have to defend a 3rd parties actions in court or face responsibility for their actions. Why not make it where if that company runs over an American Citizen all of that companies customers can be sued by the family of that American Citizen as well?

Copyright and Patents exist for one reason in the US.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

I think it's high time we discover if Patents and Copyright promote the progress of science and useful arts, or if it's actually hindering such efforts.

 

[eric76]

Loss of freedoms, loss of civil rights, loss of constitutional rights. Increased taxation, devaluing of the Dollar as the reserve currency, super inflation, unemployment, deplorable economy, etc...

Whey else?

The whole country is going to the shitter.

Care to name one of the rights that you've lost?

 

[Skyhooker]

I think it's high time we discover if Patents and Copyright promote the progress of science and useful arts, or if it's actually hindering such efforts.

For your consideration:

Stephan Kinsella - Against Intellectual Property
PDF
Audiobook

And, of course:

Copying Is Not Theft - Nina Paley

 

[dbdawn]

Care to name one of the rights that you've lost?

Lots of things, for something recent start with the Patriot Act.

 

[Xander]

Lots of things, for something recent start with the Patriot Act.

Didn't you guys used to have a right to privacy?

Edit: I remember growing up the only anal probes you'd have to worry about would be from TV aliens but now it's every American airport.

 

[red12049]

For your consideration:

Stephan Kinsella - Against Intellectual Property
PDF
Audiobook

And, of course:

Copying Is Not Theft - Nina Paley

BTW, you should know that there is a pretty close association between Mises and the John Birch Society. Not sure how you might feel about that.

/hijack

Rick

 

[MobileTechie]

As much as I've enjoyed downloading stuff in the past and as much as I'd hate to be on the sharp end of this, I can't help but think it's appropriate. They've identified the offenders and need to know who they are. It's not like they are protesters who are being hunted by a totalitarian government, they are breaking the law and the people who are hurt by their actions want redress. It's harsh but seems quite just to me.

 

[Paul Rodgers]

The problem with this is that unless it is a static IP there is a decent chance of suing the wrong person. In the end it is cheaper to settle than try to defend yourself if you are incorrectly identified. These companies know this and they don't care. Then if the companies feel they made a mistake and won't win they seek a dismissal without prejudice so you are still on the hook for your legal fees.

 

[Skyhooker]

BTW, you should know that there is a pretty close association between Mises and the John Birch Society. Not sure how you might feel about that.

/hijack

Rick

The Birchers, as have other anti-establishment, anti-Communist, or "conservative" organizations, have of course borrowed from the Austrians to support their "free market" rhetoric. I put the latter in quotes, because a regulated market is, of course, not free, and the Birchers are deluded into thinking that a government can remain limited, despite the lack of historical examples. I do not consider that a close association, nor does any such borrowing diminish the truth, excellent scholarship and principled actions of the Austrian School economists. Others hack away at the leaves of evil, while the Austrians strike at the root.

 

[MobileTechie]

The problem with this is that unless it is a static IP there is a decent chance of suing the wrong person. In the end it is cheaper to settle than try to defend yourself if you are incorrectly identified. These companies know this and they don't care. Then if the companies feel they made a mistake and won't win they seek a dismissal without prejudice so you are still on the hook for your legal fees.

Really? I can't see it being very difficult for an ISP to keep accurate records of which IP address was assigned to which account and telephone number.

 

[vdub12]

The part I don't understand is its not illegal to download copyrighted material. Its illegal to make it available or upload it but there is no law against downloading it.

 

[Paul Rodgers]

Really? I can't see it being very difficult for an ISP to keep accurate records of which IP address was assigned to which account and telephone number.

I know there have been RIAA cases in which defendants were dead or did not own computers. All these companies want is the names and addresses so that they can send out their settlement letters. There is no real intent to actually sue the defendants.

On a side note

The recording and movie industries are unwilling to change their business model to survive in the 21st century and are therefore blaming losses on piracy when it has been shown that sales are up and piracy is not a major factor in lost revenue. These industries continue to shoot themselves in the foot with DRM, lackluster content, and business decisions based upon how things worked 10+ years ago. They are unwilling to innovate and consumers are being punished for this. This is the stuff that happens when companies have more rights than actual people. I can not feel sorry for an industry like this.

I have not bought a movie or paid to see one in theaters in years. I have a satellite radio and very rarely buy music and when I do I buy the CD to avoid the DRM.

 

[MobileTechie]

I know there have been RIAA cases in which defendants were dead or did not own computers. All these companies want is the names and addresses so that they can send out their settlement letters. There is no real intent to actually sue the defendants.

On a side note

The recording and movie industries are unwilling to change their business model to survive in the 21st century and are therefore blaming losses on piracy when it has been shown that sales are up and piracy is not a major factor in lost revenue. These industries continue to shoot themselves in the foot with DRM, lackluster content, and business decisions based upon how things worked 10+ years ago. They are unwilling to innovate and consumers are being punished for this. This is the stuff that happens when companies have more rights than actual people. I can not feel sorry for an industry like this.

I have not bought a movie or paid to see one in theaters in years. I have a satellite radio and very rarely buy music and when I do I buy the CD to avoid the DRM.

In that case it would appear that the DRM is working since it made you pay for something?

We can all blame their business model but it's hard to come up with one that involves them being able to sell their product at the price they want, which surely is their right?

I don't see customers being punished for old business models. The problem is that the internet makes small scale piracy trivially easy and people have got used to getting stuff for free. Now we don't like paying for it and are happy to take the risk. When that risk looks to become untenable, we stamp our feet and blame them for stopping us getting our free stuff.