Judge Says No To Hurt Locker Subpoenas
from the follow-the-rules,-guys dept
Last month, we noted that at least one ISP, Midcontinent Communications, was actually fighting the mass subpoenas from US Copyright Group in its attempt to demand money from people associated with IP addresses that allegedly shared the movie Hurt Locker. It looks like the judge has, indeed, quashed the subpoenas, noting a series of procedural problems with them (notably, these are mostly the same procedural problems with the subpoena recently sent to us). This doesn't mean that things are over, as US Copyright Group can try to follow the rules next time around, but it should be a reminder to companies that just because you receive a subpoena, it doesn't mean you just have to roll over and hand over information. You have every right to make sure that it's within what the law allows.
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: hurt locker, quashed, subpoenas
Companies: midcontinent communications, us copyright group
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Now a lot of people can use the "this is not the right venue" and quash all the others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Midcontinent listed four reasons for quashing the subpoena:
(1) invalid service of process
(2) the subpoena was not issued under the authority of a court described in Rule 45, i.e., the subpoena should be issued under the authority of the District of South Dakota under Rule 45(a)(2)
(3) the parties whose identities are sought by Voltage have not been notified of the subpoena as Rule 45 requires
(4) money was not attached to the subpoena to reimburse Midcontinent for their costs of producing the information
The judge only had to look to (1) to decide in Midcontinent's favor: "Service by facsimile transmission in not an authorized method of service under the Rule." You can't just fax a subpoena someone. Duh!
Now, I wouldn't get too excited about this. It was a simple yet stupid mistake by USCG, IMO. They could very easily fix all of these problems and resubmit the subpoena properly. Considering that the 143 defendants in question could mean hundreds of thousands of dollars in potential settlements, I will be surprised if USCG doesn't fix their mistakes and resubmit the subpoena.
Still, there is plenty of egg on USCG's face for this mistake. We should all take a moment and laugh at them. ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I'll bet the next time if they properly resubmit it, Midcontinent will fight it again and win. This time, it was denied on procedural grounds simply because that was far easier than fighting it on the basis of it's substance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
If USCG does it right and resubmits it, it will not be denied. I don't care how hard Midcontinent fights it. There's just no legal basis to deny these subpoenas if they are properly submitted.
There's really no reason to think Midcontinent would even fight it if it were proper. If you read their brief you'll see that they are all to happy to play along if USCG submits a proper subpoena. They said it'll take them 3.5 hours to look up the 143 names. I'm sure USCG will be more than happy to take them up on that.
And my posts are always accurate, thank you very much. ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the south dakota decision
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: the south dakota decision
This was a pretty unique circumstance. The issue was that Midcontinent wasn't in the D.C. court's jurisdiction. I'm pretty sure all of the other ISPs involved are in the court's jurisdiction. And for ISPs that aren't, I don't see USCG making this same mistake again in the future.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
you can bet..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]