US Copyright Group Breaks Its Own Record; Sues 24,583 For Allegedly Sharing Hurt Locker
from the time-to-put-the-hurt-locker-on-these-kinds-of-lawsuits dept
While US Copyright Group (really DC-based law firm Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver) had some early setbacks in its attempt to sue thousands of file sharers, clearly hoping that most would just pay up rather than fight, it appears to be trying again, and going bigger each time. Even as more and more judges have been rejecting attempts to lump together thousands of individuals in such lawsuits, USCG keeps trying to go bigger. It set a record a few weeks ago, going after 23,322 IP addresses for the producers of the movie The Expendables, and now USCG has expanded its existing lawsuit for the producers of Hurt Locker to go after 24,583 BitTorrent users. Perhaps it's a last gasp effort by USCG before the party inevitably ends and judges bring such attempts to use the judicial system as a shakedown tool to an end.
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, lawsuits, mass filings
Companies: dunlap grubb & weaver, us copyright group
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What's wrong with that!
If just one is proved to be falsely accused then wouldn't that would negate all the rest (I.E. there would besignificant doubt that the process for accusation is not flawed).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's wrong with that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's wrong with that!
I doubt it. More likely is the one innocent gets kicked to the curb and the collateral damage is deemed acceptable by those who gain something from the occurrence. Meanwhile, the DA looks the other way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's wrong with that!
If there are going to be extraordinarily high damages for copyright infringement, then there also out to be similarly extraordinarily high damages for falsely accusing someone of infringement.
If you're going after an infringer, then identify your target, and have real evidence. In a nutshell: prove your case. Just like all other plaintiffs must do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's wrong with that!
345?
1342?
12,499?
At what point does the court say something is very, very wrong and we can't lump these cases together because there is so much variance (and there is, given just the IP 8.8.8.8 is on the list, which almost certainly is not infringing.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think the courts would be interested to know if some of these cases were created in the same fashion. Creating the situation simply to profit from it seems to be distasteful.
There is also the matter of some of the companies who want the right to sue the account holder who may in fact be unaware and uninvolved in the actual "crime", but are the easy target to blame.
And there are many of these cases out there, and you can often find invalid ip addresses listed, but Judges do not understand how it works and accept as fact statements made by the lawyers pursuing these claims.
The RIAA shill has ruled the Does have no standing to attempt to block the release of their information until they are named in a case. Given the history of this form of "litigation" (read extortion) that will never actually happen. So far USCG has gone after 1 case that got any media attention... She is a Grandmother who rents rooms, so all of the bills are in her name. USCG demanded a settlement, and when she contacted them with a valid issue they upped the demand by an additional $1000. Grandmas valid issue... She does not own a computer. Court is set to start sometimes in 2012.
So to suggest that any of these cases have real merit when they are willing to pursue someone who lacks the technical know how or the required machine to commit the alleged act you have to wonder if their motivation is defense of the law, or a payday. If you said anything other than payday, NO COOKIE for you.
Oh and the IP address 8.8.8.8 appears in the filing.
I guess Google's Public DNS server enjoys movies to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I guess Google's Public DNS server enjoys movies to.
It must be buddies with that network printer at a university that has ended up in a cease and desist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like the modern American business model to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can you imagine if they would have gone after bin laden with this much zeal? Maybe it wouldn't have taken 10 years...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this constitutional?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am4.html
Are we not supposed to be left alone in our homes? It seems to me that our tax dollars being spent on literal spies at DHS sitting at a computer looking for IP #'s is illegal search...but what do I know, I'm no lawyer.
And I still have a problem with turning sharing into stealing. The reason I have a bug up my butt about this is because I got one of those nasty letters once and was flabbergasted - it was impossible, so I thought...turned out some guy managed to access my wireless, which I do have a password for, just for the record. I discovered the guy by accident. I was sitting on my porch on a warm evening and saw the guy lurking about in a field across the street from me with laptop. I actually talked with him (cell phone in hand on 911) and he admitted it. In fact, he was the one who told me to ignore the letter and just not respond in any fashion. Nothing more ever came of it.
I asked him how the hell he pulled that off as it rather fascinated me and he said there's software a person can use to steal someone's wifi. Is that true? I honestly don't know...
Sorry, I am getting long winded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this constitutional?
Send me your home address and I'll drop by and explain further.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this constitutional?
"Send me your home address and I'll drop by and explain further."
Ah thanks but that's okay...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is this constitutional?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this constitutional?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this constitutional?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this constitutional?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is this constitutional?
Oh, also wanted to mention, yep - I use WEP. (It's the only way I know how to use...go ahead and laugh at me now, I can take it). It's scary to think I could be accused and sued for something I didn't do because some kid knows how to steal wifi. I can't help but wonder how many of these 24,000-plus find themselves in that same position and that is very troubling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is this constitutional?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this constitutional?
Erm, you can't use IP addresses to uniquely identify *people*. Routers and other networking equipment that may be in use by multiple unrelated people perhaps, but it's impossible to accurately identify an individual person with nothing more than an IP address.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this constitutional?
I haven't seen any evidence that the government was involved in collecting information in any of these cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this constitutional?
Apologies if I misunderstood that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is this constitutional?
There are IP recording firms who have in the past hired people from Craigslist to gather IP addresses.
Capturing IP addresses is not that difficult, the problem is proving that the IP address was not spoofed, was not just forwarding anothers request. Then there is the issue of trying to match the timestamp of the capture machine to the machine keeping the records at the ISP, then there is the issue of many of these firms creating or participating in the alleged infringement.
There are many technical issues with how this information is gathered, and the courts seem to accept it at face value. They debated the reliability of DNA for a very long time before it was refined to be seen as being accurate enough. Some of these cases are based on data from 1 guy writing notes and typing numbers into a spreadsheet... the chance of human error exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this constitutional?
I see - I must have gotten the 2 incidents mixed up. Been reading a lot on both.
Thank you for the clarification.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this constitutional?
Once upon a time people called me crazy for thinking like this, I wonder how all that crow they are eating nowdays tastes.
Glad I could help :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right back at 'cha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YOU CANNOT PROVE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT WITH AN IP ADDRESS!
Last month, federal agents entered a Buffalo, N.Y., man's home, accused him of downloading child pornography, and seized his computers. Three days later, they returned his equipment and acknowledged that he was, in fact, innocent. A 25-year-old neighbor was arrested soon thereafter for allegedly using the innocent man's Wi-Fi to download child pornography.
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20061366-17.html#ixzz1NMw69uMA
Technology professionals have long understood that IP addresses are closer to a zip code than a social security number. Multiple people locally accessing or remotely funneling through a specific hotspot can share IP addresses. In short, IP address offers little clue to a users' true identity.
http://www.dailytech.com/US+Legal+System+Finally+Figures+Out+IP+Address++Specific+Perso n/article21542.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A really good point. If only the USCG was was actually trying to prove infringement. I'm thinking they just want to prove they can force people to settle for enough money to justify the lawyer fees to do it again.
And again.
And possibly again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's in a name?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least one judge has issued an order demanding that the plaintiffs show cause why defendants should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, but they shouldn't be filing in the first place if they have no reason to believe they're subject to personal jurisdiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
She then closed the door on anyone targeted in these scheme by saying they do not have the right to protect their information from being released, because they have not been named in the case. So what she has created is an express lane for record demands from a 3rd party, for information about a person who has no option to stop its release.
When more people figure out that 8.8.8.8 is on the list, and what it actually is... they are going to have a field day at her expense.
8.8.8.8 is a Google Public DNS server, not a machine running bittorrent. But no one, except maybe the ISPs, are granted a chance to argue infront for her RIAA influenced highness that this list contains invalid information - why do you let them proceed when their submission has such an egregious error.
If they stand by the statement of 8.8.8.8 being a downloader, I would love to see them serve Google. I would love to see Google come to court and educate the Judge about how this all works and why this list is flawed.
To allow people to be randomly picked out of a hat, to be terrorized by a company who just wants to be paid, is an abuse of the legal process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]