Bad News for Content Owners Suing Bit Torrent Downloaders...

[pornlaw]

Thousands of alleged BitTorrent users who were suspected of downloading the movie Far Cry have booked a significant victory in court. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer ordered the copyright holder of the film, represented by the US Copyright Group, to limit their case only to those defendants there the Court had jurisdiction over. Which basically means the lawyers will have to file similar suits in other US District Courts all over the US.

If other judges hearing these types of cases pick up and follow this ruling it will either (a) cause complaints to be filed in numerous jurisdictions or unfortunately might put an end to many of these lawsuits.

From TorrentFreak.com...

http://torrentfreak.com/sued-bittorrent-users-score-win-in-far-cry-case-101120/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Torrentfreak+%28Torrentfreak% 29&asid=03cabdde

[RawAlex]

I think the judge failed on this ruling, and will likely be overturned, for a very simple reason:

Because the ISPs do not provide the user information readily, there is no way for the people filing the lawsuits to know what jurisdiction to operate in. They are left to file in a jurisdiction where the ISP operates, hoping to be able to pry the information out of their hands and then be able to move forward with actual defendants, rather than does 1 - 10000.

If this ruling stands, it would put a lot of force behind moves to limit section 230 and ISP privacy rules to allow for more direct access the defendants. Section 230 safe harbor rules were not intended to create a blind from while people could blatantly violate the law wholesale.

As a side note, take what Torrent Freak posts with a grain of salt. They are so incredibly one sided that they tend to misrepresent the rulings.

[pornlaw]

I think the judge failed on this ruling, and will likely be overturned, for a very simple reason:

Because the ISPs do not provide the user information readily, there is no way for the people filing the lawsuits to know what jurisdiction to operate in. They are left to file in a jurisdiction where the ISP operates, hoping to be able to pry the information out of their hands and then be able to move forward with actual defendants, rather than does 1 - 10000.

If this ruling stands, it would put a lot of force behind moves to limit section 230 and ISP privacy rules to allow for more direct access the defendants. Section 230 safe harbor rules were not intended to create a blind from while people could blatantly violate the law wholesale.

As a side note, take what Torrent Freak posts with a grain of salt. They are so incredibly one sided that they tend to misrepresent the rulings.

This wont be appealed. Its not a final order and not worth appealing. It will stand. Also, an entire copy of the Order is included with the story so while I understand you might not agree with the bias of the writer, the Judge's decision is there for everyone to read.

And its not about filing where the ISP is. Its about the court having jurisdiction over the actual defendants, the downloaders. The ISPs are not defendants and therefore it doesnt matter where they are located in regards to the Judge's ruling. It matters where the defendants reside. These cases are probably going to have to be split up amongst many different US District Courts.

You can serve anyone with SDT anywhere.

[RawAlex]

It comes back to the same problem. The ISPs will not provide user information without a court order, so the copyright holders are forced to create these "doe" lawsuits just to get the information. Without it, there is no way to determine the actual location of the illegal file traders. Catch 22?

If the ISPs were required to be prompt in their disclosure, and to do so without a full lawsuit being filed, it might work out. But this ruling effectively makes it a "cart before the horse" issue, where there is no way to know where to file.

It would seem that the courts are making it very difficult for copyright holders to enforce their rights, which means new legislation to fix it.

[softball]

Legislation is the only way. That DMCA has got to go. Its pre internet reality. ISPs need to be held responsible and when that happens, all of this will go away with the stroke of a pen.....disclaimer...Russians etc.

[pornlaw]

Legislation is the only way. That DMCA has got to go. Its pre internet reality. ISPs need to be held responsible and when that happens, all of this will go away with the stroke of a pen.....disclaimer...Russians etc.

Yep. Make the ISP liable and this will all end very very quickly. And they really are in the best position to monitor their users.

Funny because if Time Warner's cable television service was being stolen they would have had LE all over the thieves. However when it's someone being ripped off they want to protect their customers. Which in a way is ironic because it is also killing their core business. Perhaps they have already given up on cable television....

[softball]

Yeah...that could be. It amazes me how crooks and thieves escape any kind of reasonable justice to become respectable. Its kind of like the Kennedy family.

[Hell Puppy]

Everything comes with a cost...

If you want accountability by the ISPs that means passing legislation that will compel them to have additional logging and reporting readily available. Storage, databases and the personnel needed to service all of those requests all cost money.

Think people feel strongly enough about the rights of content producers to see the cost of their internet access double or triple?

And the major thieves will still find ways around it all and trading will continue.

[RawAlex]

Everything comes with a cost...

If you want accountability by the ISPs that means passing legislation that will compel them to have additional logging and reporting readily available. Storage, databases and the personnel needed to service all of those requests all cost money.

Think people feel strongly enough about the rights of content producers to see the cost of their internet access double or triple?

And the major thieves will still find ways around it all and trading will continue.

Actually, in order to keep track of their customers and to justify the billing, ISPs already track which user is logged into which IP. There is no additional costs, it is something they do already.

Logging what a user does is not required. It is only required that they log when they are online on a given IP,which is something they do already.

[Hell Puppy]

Actually, in order to keep track of their customers and to justify the billing, ISPs already track which user is logged into which IP. There is no additional costs, it is something they do already.

Logging what a user does is not required. It is only required that they log when they are online on a given IP,which is something they do already.

IPs can be spoofed. Gonna need more than that.

[softball]

I agree, HP...so a few innocents will get stuffed. Just like every day in a court of law. However, the greater good wins.

[RawAlex]

IPs can be spoofed. Gonna need more than that.

Sorry, but IPs cannot easily be spoofed for a download connection. They may break into someone's PC and set up a relay, but that is not spoofing. See, you provide an IP, and the machine sending the download sends the packets to that IP by route. You cannot easily get in the middle and steal the packets.

Outgoing is much easier, because you aren't looking for a reply or a return. But in order to download something, you have to provide a usable and real IP address as destination for the returning packets, or they go nowhere.

[Hell Puppy]

Sorry, but IPs cannot easily be spoofed for a download connection. They may break into someone's PC and set up a relay, but that is not spoofing. See, you provide an IP, and the machine sending the download sends the packets to that IP by route. You cannot easily get in the middle and steal the packets.

Outgoing is much easier, because you aren't looking for a reply or a return. But in order to download something, you have to provide a usable and real IP address as destination for the returning packets, or they go nowhere.

I was thinking more along the lines of a VPN style solution. Swap the IP for that of one of a VPN cluster, tunnel out to the server, encrypt the whole thing.

But the real point is short of extensive logging, data mining and really intrusive lock downs of allowed ports and packet types, there will always be a technical way to defeat logging, security, drm or anything else you throw out there.

[RawAlex]

I was thinking more along the lines of a VPN style solution. Swap the IP for that of one of a VPN cluster, tunnel out to the server, encrypt the whole thing.

But the real point is short of extensive logging, data mining and really intrusive lock downs of allowed ports and packet types, there will always be a technical way to defeat logging, security, drm or anything else you throw out there.

Yes, I agree, in the same manner that someone always has a way to break into Fort Knox. By that logic, we should all remove the locks from our front doors and leave the keys in our cars, because they are going to break in and steal stuff anyway.

There are no 100% solutions. The idea is to find ways to deal with the big fat middle, the 80% of people who connection their home PC to a file sharing network and illegally download stuff. Make the 80% feel very uncomfortable doing this, and the tide of piracy changes.

[TheEnforcer]

It comes back to the same problem. The ISPs will not provide user information without a court order, so the copyright holders are forced to create these "doe" lawsuits just to get the information. Without it, there is no way to determine the actual location of the illegal file traders. Catch 22?

If the ISPs were required to be prompt in their disclosure, and to do so without a full lawsuit being filed, it might work out. But this ruling effectively makes it a "cart before the horse" issue, where there is no way to know where to file.

It would seem that the courts are making it very difficult for copyright holders to enforce their rights, which means new legislation to fix it.

Fat chance of that happening any time soon. Politicians are generally tech morons and wouldn't have a clue as how to proceed and are just as likely to screw copyright holders over than actually protecting them.