Hurt Locker Subpoenas Arrive With New Language... And Higher Demands
from the the-$400-oscar-bounty dept
Well, it took a while, but US Copyright Group (really DC law firm Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver) have finally gotten around to getting subpoenas out to ISPs in the Hurt Locker lawsuit. While that lawsuit was filed months ago, the subpoenas just went out, in part, because of the fight in another of USCG's lawsuits over certain aspects of the threat letters. That ended with a requirement for USCG to work with groups like the EFF to come up with more informative threat letters. The results don't look all that more reasonable, but it does note that those accused have the right to try to fight the subpoena, and removes the misleading threat of a $150,000 penalty hanging over their heads. Of course, being just slightly more honest has its cost. The pre-settlement fee demanded has been increased from $2,500 to $2,900 this time around.Separately, in Greg Sandoval's article, he talks to Cindy Cohn from the EFF who notes that they're hearing from a lot more people on the receiving end of USCG lawsuits who have no idea what it's all about and aren't BitTorrent users at all. That happened with the RIAA lawsuits as well, but apparently at a much lower rate. This certainly calls into serious question the techniques that USCG is using to identify file sharers and to make sure they're not suing innocent people. Of course, when you look at the economics of it all, to USCG it really doesn't matter. When it makes mistakes, the actual likelihood of getting in trouble for it times the likely cost of such a mistake is so low as to make the incentive such that there's little reason to care about false positives. Yet, on the flip side, the cost of defending yourself against a bogus threat from USCG is certainly going to be more than $2,900 in almost every case. As Cohn notes:
"When it comes to copyright," Cohn said "the law is set up so that truth, whether someone actually violated the law or not, takes a back seat to financial considerations."And, really, that's what's so nefarious about this whole process. The incentives are totally screwed up. USCG has no incentive to weed out the false positives, and the innocent folks threatened have powerful economic incentives to just pay up. It's still not "extortion," in that USCG can claim to have a legitimate legal basis for the demands, but it certainly comes damn close in practice.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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: copyright, hurt locker, pre-settlement letters, subpoenas
Companies: us copyright group
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Costs add up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Costs add up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/machine learning joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incentive
Where is the incentive for Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver to make sure they are not suing innocent people? From here it appears as if they would rather have more false positives since many innocent people will settle anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Incentive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I, for one, would never settle if I were innocent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Incentive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How Ironic
http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-copyright-group-steal-competitors-website-100730/
http://ars technica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/is-the-us-copyright-group-a-dirty-pirate.ars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obvious
It should be obvious: they have no concern for copyright whatsoever. All they care about is money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judge Collyer's order that USCG work with the EFF in the "Far Cry" case has nothing to do with the "Hurt Locker" case, which is being presided over by Judge Urbina.
I just checked the docket, and the EFF hasn't filed a thing in the "Hurt Locker" case. Nor has the judge issued any orders about required notice to the defendants with respect to the subpoenas.
I wish CNET had posted a copy of the "correspondence" between USCG and the Qwest customer. I'd like to see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Indeed. There was no requirement here, but it seems obvious (to all, but you, it seems) that USCG would use the new language in the Hurt Locker case to avoid having to go through the same process again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In the "Far Cry" case, the court-ordered notice was given to the subscriber concurrent with the subpoena to the ISP for the subscriber's information.
In this case, the document in question is the settlement offer from USCG. If a subscriber has received a settlement offer, it means their ISP has already turned over their information to USCG.
How could USCG be trying to avoid giving notice with the subpoena if they're already past the subpoena stage of things?
Better luck next time, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The USCG cases are in the District of Columbia.
Far Cry
ACHTE/NEUNTE BOLL KINO BETEILIGUNGS GMBH & CO KG v. DOES 1 - 4,577
Case Number: 1:10-cv-00453
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2010cv00453/141268/
Hurt Locker
VOLTAGE PICTURES, LLC v. DOES
Case Number: 1:10-cv-00873
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2010cv00873/142359/
You can read the dockets for yourself. It's 8 cents per page to view the filings.
Last time you asked for a cite, I gave it to you and you said nothing. You're welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100827/16465610806.shtml#c827
You're welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You even cited things that don't support your position!
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100820/00543610697.shtml#c3895
http://techdirt.com/ar ticle.php?sid=20100720/17383310297#c868
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You claim others do not support their position, then you regularly fail to do so yourself, whilst acting above the rest of us at the same time. This has been the only occasion I've seen from you where you have actually substantiated what you say with something that supports your position.
When you have supported your position, you have often done so with odd interpretations of what you cite that do not actually support what you say they do.
Honestly joe, I'm not gonna bother spelling it out for you any further. If you don't get it now, you never will.
P.S.
EFF has made specific reference to the Hurt Locker case elsewhere:
http://www.eff.org/uscg
It appears that EFF have only focused on the Far Cry case either due to insufficient resources or hoping to use it as a slap down on USCG to get them to produce better informational letters in other cases and the future regardless. In line with Mikes interpretation, it would appear that USCG could (and will) use the new letter that has been noted as not being much better than before to point at to say it is meeting requirements if it's brought up in other cases.
In other words, they're hoping they can continue bullying people into settlements whilst claiming being fully informative, even as pre-settlement cost has been raised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Once again, Mike's interpretation is completely implausible. As the AC commenter in this thread has pointed out, it appears that the correspondence here is a unique situation where CNET was acting as a go-between with an alleged infringer and USCG. There is no evidence that USCG has supplied ISPs with a letter explaining their rights as the judge in the "Far Cry" case ordered them to do with TWC subscribers.
If you've seen evidence otherwise, pray, do share.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here you go again. It's no wonder you're so popular.
No it isn't. USCG delaying and using the new letters ordered from the Far Cry case allows them to not have to go through this issue again should EFF or others bring similar complaints in other cases. The subpoena took so long to arrive in this case precisely because of the suit in the other case, which may have meant they'd have to fight against similar claims (which they wouldn't want to waste money on - produce the new letter and send that one instead when it's done).
There is no claim that CNET has been a go between for any defendants. That seems to be a misinterpretation on your part.
This isn't only Mikes interpretation either, from the CNET article:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now how could USCG send a settlement letter to a subscriber in this case when they don't know their identity?
In the "Far Cry" case, the purpose of the letter was to tell the subscriber about their rights vis-a-vis the subpoena. It was not about USCG's offer to settle.
Here the letter in question mentions the subscriber's rights, but also mentions USCG's demand. It's not the same letter as in the "Far Cry" case.
I haven't seen the letter in question, so I'm not exactly sure what it says. That's why in my first post in this thread I said I wish CNET had posted a copy of the letter in question.
AC poster said the correspondence was a special circumstance of CNET acting as a go-between. This is a plausible explanation, but as I've indicated, I don't know either way.
The fact that the correspondence indicates what amount USCG will settle for tells me that it isn't a letter they gave to the ISPs to pass along to the subscribers, which is what Mike was claiming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know.
I thought that it contained info on how to respond along side the info on penalties and settlement fee. After the new letter was drafted, the settlement mentioned went up. That's how I've read it so far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
That's rich coming from you of all people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LOL
I'm not sure what the problem is here. Mike was parroting the report from CNET, and he made a mistake. I pointed out his mistake. He responded that his interpretation was "obvious." The fact is though that he's 100% wrong, and I told him so.
He should be admitting that he made a mistake and thanking me for pointing it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Is this true, or was the letter delivered to the defendants with the "settlement offers" from USCG? I honestly don't know.
In any case:
How could USCG be trying to avoid giving notice with the subpoena if they're already past the subpoena stage of things?
The USCG is just now entering the subpoena stage in this case. That's the whole thrust of the CNet article. Do you have any evidence that they're wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The whole idea of the letter was to inform the subscriber of their options in response to the their ISP being subpoenaed for their information. The settlement offers came later, after the ISP had turned over the subscriber's information to USCG. That's why I assumed that in the "Hurt Locker" case we were at the settlement offer stage. How else could the subscriber know what USCG's demands were? I hadn't considered the possibility that CNET was playing middleman in a conversation between USCG and the subscriber which is apparently what's happening. I'm not really sure. I'll have to reread the article. Too tired to do it now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Misleading at best outright lie at worst.
Mike this does nothing for your standing and reputation.
Why do you try to mislead your 'readers' ? so blatently
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
DWG contacted a Qwest customer through CNET and was informed of things, that is what I understood.
More the subpoenas apparently were just sent and there is no indication that they were executed yet as QWEST is informing their customers first and apparently no one have received a settlement offer yet directly from DWG.
Now please point to the source of your talk so we can dismiss any doubts about those facts.
I'm fairly confident that you misunderstood the text and reached the wrong conclusions.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32726320/Volt-Pict-2573095-3-3943
http://www.rfcexpress .com/lawsuit.asp?id=59043
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm glad to admit it if I am wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The Qwest customer apparently upon receiving notification from QWwest that he was being target contacted DGW directly. The article is not clear if he received a settlement letter, but is reasonable to assume he is the one that provided the Qwest notification to CNET that is shown.
What is probably the case is that Qwest is informing people about so they can move with motions to quash, dismiss or summary judgments first apparently, nowhere in there is anything about people receiving the settlements letters directly or their data being handed as of yet, not even in the dockets, it says only that the subpoenas were sent, but that is it, there is no other steps taken as of today, so either DWG is processing the data or more probably it didn't yet receive anything from Qwest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've got until Oct. 4 to pay the $2500 before I become named as a Defendant in the lawsuit and have my computer inspected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
DWG contacted a Qwest customer through CNET and was informed of things, that is what I understood.
More the subpoenas apparently were just sent and there is no indication that they were executed yet as QWEST is informing their customers first and apparently no one have received a settlement offer yet directly from DWG.
Now please point to the source of your talk so we can dismiss any doubts about those facts.
I'm fairly confident that you misunderstood the text and reached the wrong conclusions.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32726320/Volt-Pict-2573095-3-3943
http://www.rfcexpress .com/lawsuit.asp?id=59043
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if you got a letter look at this.
http://torrentfreak.com/lawyer-offers-self-help-to-sued-bittorrent-users-100829/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USCG Tracking Method
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's nice to know that the justice system is doing its best to protect those most in need of protection. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Different Costs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Different Costs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyT8_W8LLpE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blind guy in the middle of a brawl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What you're saying makes sense, but it's not how it's done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
apparently..
Obvious troll is obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: apparently..
People on here are so critical of this process, yet I don't think anyone knows what's being balanced by the courts. Take the subpoenas to the ISPs to reveal an alleged infringer's identity, for example. People are critical of that process, yet I doubt any of these critics could explain the balancing test used by the courts in determining if the subpoenas are proper. Personally, I like to understand something before I'm critical of it.
I've studied this process, and I'm explaining my understanding of it. I would hope that people would appreciate someone bringing actual analysis based on research to the table rather than unsupported opinions passed off as conclusory statements. I know I would value such things. Apparently you do not.
Anyone that disagrees with you is a shill, right? That's high-school logic. Try and think like a big boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: apparently..
As for being critical, why is it necessary to understand the process to be critical of it? If something doesn't make sense (copyright law, for instance) then no understanding in the world will make someone less critical of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: apparently..
Why is it necessary to understand something before you can be critical of it? Are you serious?
Copyright law makes sense to the lawmakers and the courts. Maybe if you understood their position and reasoning, your criticism of that same position and reasoning would have more gravitas. Don't you think?
"I don't understand copyright law, but I'm critical of it. Listen to me!"
LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The cost to hiring a lawyer is more than the out of court settlement so its hard to win.
Here is an interesting web site offering self help to block the release of your name to USCG.
http://torrentfreak.com/lawyer-offers-self-help-to-sued-bittorrent-users-100829/
The link to the forms are in the text toward the bottom.
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8601-31001_3-20015493-1.html?communityId=2145&targetCommunityId=2145&bl ogId=261&tag=mncol;tback#ixzz0ygl16wjd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ass
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ass
I'd ask a question as to why you are calling Mike an ass, but given your demonstrated ability to not understand English I'll let others think about the conduct of average_joe and come to their own conclusion as to why he's calling Mike an Ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re
https://secure.aclu.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=ACLU_Email_SignUp&s_subsrc=SEM-g-evg-s-acl uname-reg
http://www.dcbar.org/inside_the_bar/contact_us/index.cfm
http://clarkhoward.com/cac/
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20021307-261.html#ixzz150NpO44u
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Between a rock and a hard place!
I have contacted the lawyers that were listed on the EFF site in my state and was told by all that they were not interested in the case, that it was cost prohibitive to fight. they couldn't give me legal advice but each hinted that it was cheaper to pay the settlement fee than to fight it in Federal Court. 1 attorney stated that he was removing his name from the EFF list due to the fact that the cost to fight these cases far outweighs the cost to settle. I contacted the attorneys that are representing the EFF and they stated that they were not interested in my case because they were being very selective on who they were representing in this suit. Lastly i contacted a Wash. D.C. attorney who would at least talk to me regarding this suit. She also stated that settling, even though innocent, was the wise decision due to the cost involved in fighting.
Lets hear it for our flawed legal system!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Between a rock and a hard place!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Between a rock and a hard place!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hurt Locker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BS Supboena
[ link to this | view in chronology ]