US Copyright Group Dumps Two Of Its Lawsuits... But Only To Refile Lawsuits Against Individuals
from the begin-speculation dept
Well, this is interesting. Slyck is reporting that the US Copyright Group has withdrawn its lawsuits in two cases, covering 944 as-yet-unnamed defendants. The two lawsuits, filed on behalf of G2 Entertainment (Uncross the Stars) and World Wide Entertainment (The Gray Man) were the first two lawsuits filed by USCG. Slyck takes a few guesses as to why the lawsuits were dropped, but the main lawyer behind US Copyright Group, Thomas Dunlap has told THREsq (which still seems like Dunlop's favorite "go to" source) that this is just a part of the process. They're going to now file lawsuits against the individual defendants in those two cases. Perhaps some of the lawyers in the audience can explain how this works? Why do they get to file one lawsuit to find out names, and then, rather than just inserting the names into that original lawsuit, instead file a totally different lawsuit? I'm sure there's a perfectly good reason for this, but it does seem strange.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: lawsuits
Companies: us copyright group
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not a lawyer but...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why individual suits
944 defendants can share the expenses, thus allowing them to hire top attorneys at a fraction of the individual cost. Given these kinds of cost/benefit, the 944 can stand and fight like an army. They might even be able to counter with a class action lawsuit.
1 defendant, on the other hand, is in way over his head and is more likely to settle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
someone needs to create a website for them
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: someone needs to create a website for them
[ link to this | view in thread ]
With my GED in law...
As for filing again, that's the "beauty" of the US court system. Unless there is a final agreement or adjudication on the first case, they get to file a second one for the same issue against the same person. Unfortunately, depending on the court, sometimes it's not even seen as a second filing. Some plaintiffs have successfully convinced the court that since the first case was against multiple John/Jane Does, it's not the same as a case against an individual named defendant.
/No GED in law
//This is not legal advice, just personal opinion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Two different lawsuits, for two different functions
Once the information is acquired, and probably the names were made available, then the next stage of the process would be specific lawsuits regarding what actually happend.
Its not that hard, and its not even like the lawsuits are for the same people, one was for the service provider or whoever to give up the names, and obviously the next ones would be lawsuits for those specifically named.
Lawsuits, are not generic, you dont just get a 'form' lawsuit, that does it all. You have to follow due process.
I dont see why you would find this the least bit confusing !
And I dont see why you are even slighly surprised about this, or that you consider this something worthy of reporting on.
So one lawsuit for discovery and
One for prosecution..
If you still dont understand, just ask and I will try to explain further. But the US legal system does not seem all that complex, even for someone not in that country.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Two different lawsuits, for two different functions
I am not a lawyer (some classes in college) but I believe it is illegal to file a lawsuit that you know is without merit. If the original lawsuit was not intended to be a lawsuit, but a means of discovery, is this process even legal?
I would think they have to claim they intended to follow through on the original suit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Two different lawsuits, for two different functions
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Two different lawsuits, for two different functions
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: someone needs to create a website for them
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There's no doubt that they can do this, but it certainly is a bit of a surprise from Dunlap & the Gang.
The more I think about it, the more brilliant I think it is. (Hat tip to Tommy.) He knows that the defendants are going to be severed, and the cases are going to be moved out of the District.
Rather than respond to thousands of motions challenging joinder and jurisdiction, he's taking the preemptive step of dismissing, severing, and refiling the cases. This saves him time and money--he's not wasting energy and resources fighting the inevitable.
They still have the problem of joint liability. Dunlap's filings read like a manifesto of why the defendants should all be held jointly liable. This means that the hundreds or thousands of defendants in a given case would split the damages for one infringement between them.
I think he's dismissing the defendants and refiling to take the focus off of this problem. If I'm the attorney for an individually named defendant, I'm busting out Dunlap's previous filings and arguing that my client would be jointly liable with all of the Doe defendants from the previous suit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Two lawsuits, two groups, two different lawsuit subjects, and not 'dumped' but successful.
The person seeking a lawsuit, will have to go to court and show them they have a viable suit, and the clark of the court, and the Court itself will then sign the lawsuit.
Not the originating company or complainent.
Again, this series of lawsuits were for different purposes and for different people.
Its not a matter of 'just changing the names', as one lawsuit was to find out the names, and the other lawsuits are the actual suits aginst those named..
So one lawsuit would have been "I want the names of those who downloaded the files".
ONCE they have the names, they then need to direct the next lawsuits against the particular people.
A DIFFERENT LAWSUIT,, it would be no good asking those people THESsq named, what the names are of the people !!..
That would be a far more interesting story, NO, what they are doing is DUE PROCESS, they had to create a lawsuit to get the names, then then they create new lawsuits for those individuals, collectively or individucally.
Again, its not that hard, its no different to getting a search warrent, the same process has to be gone through basically by the police, they need the courts permission, but issuing of a search warrent is not proof of guilt, and its not the charge that is going to be incurred if they find something illegal in the search.
No, one lawsuit is with one group (the ISP), and the other is against the actual 'suspects'.
And its not the company that gets to make up arbitary lawsuits, and do what they like, lawsuits have to comply with the law, and have to be approved by and have the authority of the Court.
I would also say that the original two lawsuits were not dumped, they were successful, they got the names, the lawsuit did its job.
Lawsuits only live as long as they are required to do the job intented.
So if they got the names, the lawsuits were successful, not DUMPED..
And if you say that the majority will not fight it, I would say then the majority are guilty, because with all lawsuits in the US there is mediation, and if you have a good defense, (ie you did not actually download the files,) you would most certainly defend it.
I would, and everyone I know would defend themselves if they are innocent..
I do not know anyone who would just pay up because someone asked me too..
Unless I was guilty..
But please explain how the two lawsuits were dumped, if they got the result they were seeking in the lawsuits ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Two lawsuits, two groups, two different lawsuit subjects, and not 'dumped' but successful.
I would, and everyone I know would defend themselves if they are innocent..
I do not know anyone who would just pay up because someone asked me too..
Unless I was guilty..
He was actually making sense up to this point. Amazing, usually he goes off the rails within about four words.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
just a musing outloud @darryl
This is what I'm reading :
"You're proposing that this manoeuvre (the filling and the de-filling once information useful for another case otherwise unavailable is made so) is a.o.k. because the first lawsuit was successful (and so not "dumped") and actually consisted of a different matter altogether."
Now, this is where I get lost : You're proposing that the suit was a success, even if it was not brought to term (no judgement, etc) because the goals of those who petitioned for it was attained. However, it is accepted that a lawsuit cannot be made frivilously : thus the goals of the petitioners must be those of the lawsuit ("issued" by the Court - as per my understanding). If the lawsuit is not brought to term (judgement, settlement, etc), by the very definition, it did not reach it's goal.
So the lawsuit is a success for reaching its goal, that wasn't ITS goal, but its petitioners goal... (Glitch number 1)
(Glitch number 2) The idea that it is like a warrent.
A warrent's purpose is to get information. If you get information, you achieved the warrents purpose. A lawsuit's purpose is (whatever is stated in its creation).
If you get the information you wanted from a lawsuit, and that was the lawsuit's legal role, you'd need it to actually grant you right to use said information by actually granting you that right. If you can get information by using a lawsuit to get information but don't actually have to have the lawsuit grant you that information... you see where the glitch lies ?
i.e. : if you're rich, you can legaly buy information that you have no right to. (just that sentence hurts my brain)
Anyhow, again, I'm not saying that what you're proposing isn't what is accepted - I'm just not seeing the coherence.
My 2cp - and sorry for the phrasing/spelling/other forms of language errors : Québécois (english is a second language)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Creating Your Own Website!
[ link to this | view in thread ]