When Even Comcast Is Refusing To Identify Those Accused Of Infringement...
from the copyright-trolls-gone-too-far dept
We've seen various ISPs push back (mostly successfully) on attempts by copyright trolls to lump together hundreds, or even thousands, of separate IP addresses into a single lawsuit for the sake of being able to subpoena identities (and then send threatening "settlement" demand letters). But, still, it's a bit of a surprise to see Comcast get into the game as well, filing a motion with a district court arguing that it shouldn't have to provide such info in response to subpoenas from various copyright trolls. Yes, Comcast has the same basic argument as other ISPs... but Comcast is also the owner of NBC Universal, who is very much on the other side of this issue, and has been one of the strongest copyright maximalists out there. So it's a bit surprising to see them using an argument that, in theory, could come back to make NBC Universal's life more difficult whenever it goes after people for allegedly infringing on its works online. In fact, Comcast argues pretty strongly against copyright trolling in the filing:Plaintiffs should not be allowed to profit from unfair litigation tactics whereby they use the offices of the Court as an inexpensive means to gain Doe defendants’ personal information and coerce “settlements” from them. It is evident in these cases – and the multitude of cases filed by plaintiffs and other pornographers represented by their counsel – that plaintiffs have no interest in actually litigating their claims against the Doe defendants, but simply seek to use the Court and its subpoena powers to obtain sufficient information to shake down the Doe defendants. The Federal Rules require the Court to deny discovery “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). This case requires such relief.Now, of course, NBC Universal hasn't gone all the way to the level of pure trolling and forcing settlements out of people, but I've yet to see a single situation where the lawyers at NBC Universal were willing to support anything that might make it more difficult for them to go after people for infringement. Perhaps now that they're under the Comcast umbrella NBC Universal will have to tone down its aggressiveness on these issues?
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 troll, isp, shakedown
Companies: comcast, nbc universal
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They also are sick of having customers, who are uninformed about the law, blaming them for the information being sought.
And this copyright trolling gig uses the same fancy tech they are rolling out for 6 strikes, so they can't raise questions about an IP address not actually leading to the "real" infringer so... attack the cash grab for what it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Meanwhile Prenda (who is the troll in this case), in violation of many state telemarketer laws, replaced their goon Mark Lutz with robocalls... and about to be busted. Buy popcorn while it lasts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Meanwhile Prenda (who is the troll in this case), in violation of many state telemarketer laws, replaced their goon Mark Lutz with robocalls... and about to be busted. Buy popcorn while it lasts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On one hand they have annoyed and angry customers for their real money maker, the ISP part of the business and the other has NBC Universal who aren't as profitable.
The balance with copyright trolls, even owning a content company just doesn't work out.
That and, I suspect, their own legal department telling them it's time to draw a bright red line on the lawn due to cost and the fact that it's all more trouble than it's worth as they could lay themselves open to more trouble down the line from subscribers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This troll has a new name, but same tactics.
Prenda is the new version of John Steele's operation transplanted to Florida, they went there to use the 'Writ of Pure Discovery' state law to get the names without the limitations Federal Courts have placed on their filings.
Another problem in these cases is the names are given, then the cases is suddenly withdrawn. The trolls then work down the entire list making threats about suing people for $150,000.
Oh and lets not forget most of the internet hookups are setup by people working for Comcast and if they haven't secured them there is that whole wacky idea that $10k is owed for negligence. They might end up being sued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tricks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawyer on lawyer
Seems like they are singling out pornography producers shakedowns in their statement. Albeit, the standard should cover all companies trolling for quick shakedown settlements, since NBC-U isn't a 'porn producer' Comcast doesn't want to do the dirty work for somebody else but would gladly give it up if it was their own content being infringed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is not surprising at all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/boB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a more serious problem...
One of my coworkers had his connection threatened because Comcast received a DMCA notice that he was pirating a TV show. The reason? He was seeding a torrent of a Linux distribution with a name similar to the show. (I forget what it was, this was more than a year ago and he's not around right now to ask him.)
He asked Comcast where the notice had come from, and they refused to tell him. This further underscores the problems the DMCA causes for our most sacred legal traditions. We are supposed to have the right to face our accusers when charged with a crime. But by allowing rightsholders to deal with copyright infringement extralegally, that protection, like all the rest of Due Process, is stripped from the accused.
We will never get our rights back until we push back get the DMCA repealed or struck down by a court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's a more serious problem...
You will get a black mark next to your name, unless you pay them $35 to challenge the notice. (They need to charge to make sure your notice isn't frivolous, like many of their notices.) Oh and you can only pick from a hand selected list of challenge reasons, and nothing has entered the public domain since 1923 on their list and free software is just software someone stole.
You get enough black marks your ISP has a list of things they can do, although disconnection is supposed to be off the table. Because having your bandwidth slowed to the speed of dial up because a group known for sending bogus "notices" is totally okay.
You think the DMCA is bad, you should look at 6 strikes. Media companies injecting themselves into contracts consumers have with ISPs, encouraging them to make the product worse based on a media companies spy group (who uses hugely flawed tech). Oh and just because they are the monopoly in many areas we should not be concerned that this is antitrust worthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And they get paid for the lookups, the problem is they are piling 3K people into each filing. 250,000+ does have had their information sought. Trolls have tried to sue them in court to make them spend more money and give them names faster.
The ISPs are answering a legal document issued by a court, the problem is getting the court to understand that their powers are being used to run extortion not legal cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh???
What is fun is when a copyright troll buys an old porn, recuts a scene and then files for a new copyright. They "forget" to apply for the correct copyright, or don't apply until after they get the list of ip addresses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]