TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

EFF Takes On Mass BitTorrent Lawsuits In Court Tomorrow

As the US Copyright Group continues with its plans to force settlements from thousands of individuals who they claim illegally shared copyright movies using BitTorrent, opposition to their turn-piracy-into-profit scheme grows. Tomorrow the EFF steps up to the mark in a federal court to argue for the breaking up of the lawsuits. If successful they could strike a significant blow to this operation.

The US Copyright Group (USCG) – a front for the Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver lawfirm – has made dozens of headlines this year after its entrance into the pay-up-or-else file-sharing revenue generation market. They track alleged file-sharers in the U.S. on BitTorrent and threaten legal action against them but, as is common with these schemes around Europe, all people have to do is pay up a settlement fee and the whole thing can be made to go away.

As pioneered by lawyers such Davenport Lyons and ACS:Law in the UK, USCG aim to obtain the real identities of those behind the IP addresses they have collected in the cheapest possible manner. Filing separate lawsuits against each individual would prove prohibitively expensive and would mean that there would be little profit to be made. Instead they put them all together in a single lawsuit.

In court filings the EFF, Public Citizen and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) joined forces to attack the strategy, filing an amicus brief in three cases and arguing how these lawsuits “flout the legal safeguards that protect individuals’ rights” and asking that all but one of the ‘John Doe’ defendants should be removed from the lawsuits.

In response, a judge asked USCG to explain why she shouldn’t do just that.

In brief, USCG’s response was that all of the defendants are linked since they all used BitTorrent to acquire/share the file in question, and by its very nature they will all be sharing data with each other. While on the surface their argument might seem solid, there are plenty of holes.

Tomorrow, Court 2 of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia will hear a submission from the EFF where it will argue for the breaking up of these lawsuits which they say improperly targets thousands of BitTorrent users by wrongfully denying them “fair access to individual justice”.

Countering the assertion by USCG that by virtue of the fact that all the defendants used BitTorrent they must therefore be linked, EFF Senior Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry will argue that the company has not provided enough evidence to prove that.

“The stakes are high for anyone identified in USCG’s slipshod cases,” writes the EFF. “USCG’s strategy appears to be to threaten a judgment of up to $150,000 per downloaded movie — the maximum penalty allowable by law in copyright suits and a very unlikely judgment in cases arising from a single, noncommercial infringement — in order to pressure the alleged infringers to settle quickly for $1,500 – $2,500 per person.”

In the United States and the United Kingdom alike, it is the ability for lawyers to cheaply bundle targets together in one convenient lawsuit that provides the lifeblood to these schemes. Once the ‘unit cost’ goes up to one person/one lawsuit, the whole enterprise becomes so expensive that it is no longer profitable. If the EFF can win this battle, it will be a significant victory.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Lame

    Cool!

  • Widget

    So… tomorrow the EFF is turning in another piece of paper to the court..?

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention EFF Takes On Mass BitTorrent Lawsuits In Court Tomorrow | TorrentFreak -- Topsy.com

  • Zebra

    I hope Eff wins, and the law firm of Grub, Grubby and Grubbier is severely sanctioned by the bar.

  • Fugasmic

    @2 Which is handing one piece of paper more than you will be handing in. Unless you are willing to get off your backside to help those that may need the help in a courtcase, maybe you should just sit back again and STFU.

  • Dano

    So what if bittorrent uses a swarm to distribute data! why does that change anything.
    If were to use megaupload, you still have uploaders and downloaders which are part of the same network. Same with emule and usenet and every other p2p technology. Why the f**k does the way the data is distributed make a difference.

    To me this just seems like a way to trick the court by making them focus on something irrelevant. I don’t think they will be succesful in this sleazy tactic…

  • tommyknocker

    Great if the USCG get stuffed over this,but there is still time to give whoever a BIG bag of money

  • anonymous

    so how are they going to prove that all those named in these lawsuits actually shared everything with each other? i was of the opinion that if i was uploading a torrent then only those parts needed by each person would be taken from me. other parts would be taken from other people. therefore, how can i or anyone else be sharing everything with everyone, as is claimed?

  • Brandon

    Their stupid scheme of taking 1000′s of people to court with one court case will always be thrown out. If they individually sue each one they will go broke and not win anyway. They are basically down to sending out threats like a deliquent credit card company hope to scrape the bottom of the barrel and hope someone sends them some money. Yeh what losers…

  • tommyknocker

    To all in the USA. ACS Law have been doing this and getting away with it in the UK for over two years now.

  • ME

    I was in that swarm, I was only sharing the .nfo file.
    Of course to their ‘data collection’ devices, my ip is infringing something.
    It is impossible to tell which ip’s were sharing which files in the swarm, i’ll add, not all files in the swarm are ‘infringing’, and therefore they have no case.
    SIMPLE AS F*CKIN THAT.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention http://torrentfreak.com/eff-takes-on-mass-bittorrent-lawsuits-in-court-tomorrow-100629/?asid=03cabddeutm_sourcepingback -- Topsy.com

  • Not so Innocent

    EFF doesn’t give up so easily.
    There amici curiae normally never unseen by the court. Packs a big punch. They are basically a whip to the judges back. Most judges take the MPAA lawyers word for things. If you ever listen to some of their court readings. It’s plain to see or hear, they truly believe they are the law. It almost baffles them to appear before a judge. If their not symbolically trying to hurl judgments to the judges. They are trying to get a settlement from the suit.

    I find it funny that this comes from a group CEO of people who are already millionaires. They need to stop playing footsies under the table to governments and try to get back to doing what they do best.

    Give us some good films!

  • tobey

    @11

    the mpaa has nothing to do with this lawsuit

  • Stuff Man

    well one nice thing is if they lose all the alleged file shares could actually pitch in less than $1500 to hire a lawyer to defend them in this one case

  • tobey

    also if this gets broken up, I feel bad for the one dude who’s name will get left on the lawsuit. he’s going to get his program sued back to the stoneage.

  • Just Me

    If ten people going down a road are speeding, you don’t get one ticket and one hearing, you each get a ticket and hearing.

  • DJDANK

    Thank you god for the EFF and ACLU! Way to go guys, keep up the good work and stick up for the little guy!

  • DJDANK

    @ comment 3
    …… it’s not Grub, Grubby, Grubbier

    It’s Duche-flap, Crudd and Weasel

  • The United Hackers Association

    HERES an idea they aren’t thinking of
    what happens to the greedy lawyers if we stop trading online….can’t sue what ya cant find

  • Anonymous

    Let’s go EFF!!

  • J

    @2, I believe the EFF lawyer is actually going to appear before the Judge Wednesday afternoon. She already filed the papers.

    This whole thing is ridiculous, and no company should be allowed to get away with pure blackmail/extortion like this. I hope the judge sees that. As one day they could be doing this illegal tactic to her own family or relatives.

  • sUm1

    MPAA & RIA suck my fiber optic cable!

  • TW

    This is stupid. They are only all linked if they are all guilty! If the court sides with USCG on this, they are effectively saying that everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

  • anon2

    wonder what the cost in bribes is for this so far? must be quite a bit as the copyright industries will be desperate to see a win here. if this case succeeeds, they will be straight on to the band wagon of 1 lot of costs for multiple lots of gains. guilty until proven innocent would be in play as well, which violates basic human rights. sure hope the judge has upped her/his knowledge of how torrent works, rather than being fooled into how the ‘industries’ say they work.

  • Antony Hopkins
  • Einstein

    The only thing USCG can accomplish and will accomplish with their lawsuits is to waste everyone’s time. EVERYONE, including courts and judges, wish they would just go away. NO ONE wants to spend 10 seconds making the MAFIAA lawyers richer than they already are.
    As for piracy, there is actually no evidence of it, or of it “hurting” the pocketbooks of Hollywood studios.

    Ps: Maybe the only evidence of piracy is the “10 most pirated movies on BitTorrent” announced by TorrentFreak”!

  • darknet

    Anyone got a spare bot net to take down this law firm’s servers?

  • Fang Mosely

    EFF is Da Bomb dude, they just dont put up with any nonsense.

    real-anonymity.se.tc

  • Jay

    A good defense is that you had the right to access the files so no infringement happened.

    Let me explain, Lets as i buy a game or music cd or dvd. What actually happens is that i buy a license for that game/music/dvd and i get the disk free, this can easily be proved by simply looking at the paperwork that comes with the disk that says your are licensed to do…. and … and so forth.

    You can not license a purchase but you can purchase a license.

    This license gives you the RIGHT to have and access a COPY of what ever it is that you bought the license to.

    You see what i am getting, you have a RIGHT to have a COPY of it.

    Initially your access comes from the disk that was supplied BUT and this is important what happens when that disk brakes? Its simple as the publishers do not provide a free service for you to reacquire what you have a RIGHT to, you can simply acquire a COPY that your license gave you a RIGHT to access.

    If you are using a service like bit torrent and download what you have a right to copy as granted by your license then there is no infringement.

    Aaaa but what about the people who you then share it with?

    Its simple you state that you have to no knowledge that they are not holders to a license of what you are sharing and as such you have to take it in good faith that they posses a license and if they do not posses a license you still can not be held responsible for someone else braking the law.

    This whole thing is really a license issue rather than a copyright issue.

    So if you do get one a letter stating copyright infringement, 1: speak to a lawyer and if required to answer there charges simply state that you own a license to the material in question but have lost access through damage and where reacquiring it though not offical means due to the lack of offical means. p.s. do not state the last bit till forced to do so.

    p.s. I am not telling anyone to do this BUT if you did not originally poses a license you could go out and buy one and damage the disk giving you proof to your claims.

    Just saying

    -Jay

  • Darth_Tater

    @ US Copyright Group

    EFF U.

  • Anonymous

    Maybe the EFF will be able to access their MO, so we know what USCG was tracking exactly, the whole torrent or a specific file, seeds or peers, all IPs in the swarm or IPs effectively uploading, was it one punctual check, or repeated checks over time to confirm the upload was not an accident, etc.

    There’s just so many unknowns that only a judge who does not take the time to investigate the BitTorrent technology could think that USCG’s demand to reveal the identities of who’s behind the so-called infringing IPs is valid.

    If all that is not clarified, indeed, as #10 stated, people can answer they were sharing only the .nfo file or other non-infringing file.

    And then, if infringement is proven, we enter the debate of the IP being in any way linked to the identity of the actual infringer.

    I hope the EFF crushes one by one every argument and so-called proof that USGC and their lawyers will present.

  • RM

    Nice.But i still got a feeling that moving into USA is like a moving into a prison.

  • Tomas

    I kind of agree with them. I use a phone and it goes to a switchboard. So if someone else were to commit fraud via the phone I would expect to be summoned to court myself. After all, we’re connected by the same switchboard.

  • Because You Can’t Torrent Beer

    @28 Jay

    You are a very shrewd mammal as they say in Ice Age. :}

    You made some very good points.

  • Jay

    Thanks i have a habit of noticing the open truths i.e. the stuff that is visible, sadly this also happens to be the stuff people gloss over as it is always theres.

    The production companies from music to moves to games want to have there cake and eat it(which is to say that want to eat there cake and still have it at the same time)

    They want to sell you there product but still retain control over it.

    Well to bad they can only have it one way or another.

    If they sell it to you they have the right to stop you from copying or sharing there product BUT they lose the ability to tell you what to do with your copy. This means resale, rent, public and private performance both for free and for charge. When you buy there product it becomes yours no longer theres and you can do what ever you want with your copy.

    BUT they do not sell it to you they license it.

    What this means is that you purchase a license to access and use there product, you have to abide by there license agreements(that abide by the law) BUT as a license holder this also means that you can access and share there product that the license gives you a right to with other license holders, known or unknown.

    This means that they must give the product away free to the license holders as remember they can not sell you a product and license it at the same time one over rides the other.

    -Jay

    p.s. I hope more people realise what i have said above and dont just accept what is there just because it has alway been that way.

  • Anonymous

    the way we can beat the copyright groups is to some how make LARGE torrent files, so when a new torrent comes out it somehow adds it to a main torrent file, and in this torrent file there will be mixtures of legal/open source/non-copyrighted stuff and also pirated movies, that way everyone will be apart of the same swarm, and can argue that they were only downloading the legal stuff from that swarm

  • Ninja

    @ 28 Jun 29, 2010 at 18:35 by Jay: agreed. Furthermore you can argue that you usually download the content to check either if it is worth having the license or to get to know content you are unfamiliar with due to drm/region/etc restrictions.

    A properly prepared argumentation with solid evidence supporting it (ie: valid licenses/original media/etc) will crush any argument.

  • Lothor The Evil

    Here in American we have a RIGHT to face our accusers.

  • Dr. Jamba Juice III Esq.

    Just make your own laws Lothor since you’re the only inhabitant of “American”. ;p

  • fs
  • orctin

    It’s a good arguement with the Licenses issue and us replace what we bought but hard to win when we are “acquiring” the copy before the DVD goes on sale for us to purchase

  • Pingback: EFF Takes On Mass BitTorrent Lawsuits

  • Sanity_Vocal

    As I see it, the only way for someone to prove that you have downloaded a movie, not just incomplete bits and bytes of a purported movie, is to access your PC and actually see the file (in avi, RMVB, DAT, Bin, etc). It’s not a movie unless the download is complete. That, by it’s very nature, is a digital copy of a movie. Anything else, is just a bunch of bits and bytes, and does not constitute.

    And unless the USCG had obtained and served a copy of a writ to seize and request for records on you, any information they have on you downloading movies, is illegally obtained and thus inadmissible in court.

  • anonymous

    so will progress be reported here at the end of the day? if not, any idea how long will we have to wait?

  • Anonymous

    Here in American we have a RIGHT to sit back shut up and do as wer god dambed told by a bunch of people we dont know lmfao

  • Pingback: News about Lawsuits information issue #1 | Attorneys At Law

  • Pingback: The Sacco and Vanzetti Controversial Murder Trial: A Headline Court Case (Headline Court Cases) | Best Young Books

  • peacekkqmark

    Yes!! Sue them! Sue them all!! To the ground!

    Wait… Never mind…

  • Pingback: EFF Takes On Mass BitTorrent Lawsuits In Court Tomorrow | Systema

  • swift

    http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/06/judge-orders-user-friendly-notices-does-targeted

    During the hearing, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer said that while the plaintiffs had a right to pursue legitimate claims, she was also concerned that the defendants’ interests be protected as well, and that the defendants might not have a fair opportunity to raise legal objections. As a result, Judge Collyer ordered the plaintiffs, TWC and amici to work together to draft a notice that could be sent to subscribers whose information is sought. The notice is intended to help educate the defendants about the case and their legal options, such as the option to challenge jurisdiction.

    EFF and its co-amici had urged the court to go a good deal further, because we believe the posture of these cases violated fundamental principles of fairness. However, we applaud the court’s effort to protect the defendants’ interests and, based on today’s hearing, we are hopeful that Judge Collyer will continue to seek to make these cases as fairer for the thousands of Doe defendants caught in the USCG dragnet.

  • Pingback: Judge Orders User-Friendly Notices for Does Targeted By USCG Suits «We Want Information

  • Anonymous

    http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/07/bittorrent-piracy-lawsuit-decision-.html

    Looks like the Judge rejected the EFF argument and the case will proceed.

  • Bryan

    You’d think with all the bad shit in this world, people would have plenty of more constructive and helpful ways to spend their time. Sure, suing thousands of people for sharing the same shitty movie that you just downloaded yourself is a great way to line your pockets, but to me you’re just another terrorist.

  • eli

    lol got love this

  • adan

    @10 Jun 29, 2010 at 13:41 by ME

    That’s one hell of an idea really :) Cause yea, legally, you weren’t distributing anything “illegal” – you were only sharing a “plain text” file with an NFO extension….damn, that almost makes me want to try it :)

    @15 Jun 29, 2010 at 14:50 by Just Me
    Usually, around here only 1 gets the ticket, and it’s generally the one black mustang with the rice can :) The cop conveniently forgets about the rest…..

    @18
    Dude, now you’re thinking. I’m wired on that sneakernet too…..I just got some new kicks today too, with flourescent laces! ^^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneakernet

    @ 35 Jun 29, 2010 at 21:14 by Anonymous
    You are onto something there :) Similar to what comment 10 mentioned…..he was ONLY seeding the NFO file, BUT he is still in the swarm….so he must be a pirate, right?

    As it stands now, these “antis” connect to a swarm, once they initiate the handshake and get their piece they “red flag” that peer, and generate the lawsuit/paperwork…BUT, their application does NOT know “which” part of the content they are actually downloading :)

  • retry

    Guys, the EFF is entirely on our side. They’re just about the only entity out there that is. In other words, if you’re going to donate any money to anybody, consider throwing some their way. They’re a non-profit legal collective and donations are charity, thus tax deductible.

    Even $20/yr can make a huge difference in how much they can fight for us in the courtroom. Legal proceedings are expensive and time consuming. Without them, the lobbyists for the MPAA/RIAA and others basically have no obstacles.

    They fight for a lot of our online and consumer rights. Subscribe to their weekly email. Check out eff.org for more info.

    I know this seems like a blatant plug. I am not affiliated in any way with them. I am just an enthusiastic supporter.

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

  • Feds Seize Cash from Major Bitcoin Exchange’s Dwolla Account

    The U.S. Government has taken a significant action against the web’s top Bitcoin exchange by seizing...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.