As reported here in November, Canadian anti-piracy company Canipre has been working with righthsolders to monitor BitTorrent networks for alleged infringers. Together with NGN Prima Productions Inc., last month they filed their first lawsuit in the Federal Court in Montreal over the unauthorized sharing of the movie Recoil.

And now, just as promised, they are back again.

The latest case sees Canipre team up with Voltage Pictures, the company that brought misery to thousands in the United States with their anti-BitTorrent campaign targeting alleged sharers of the movie The Hurt Locker.

Last week Voltage sent a motion to the ISP TekSavvy for the personal details of customers associated with around 2,000 IP addresses allegedly logged by Canipre sharing two dozen Voltage titles including Tucker & Dale vs Evil.

TekSavvy did not hand over any information and will not do so without a court order, but Voltage have informed the ISP that they will be in a Toronto court next Monday 17 December seeking such an order which will force the ISP to comply.

The movie company says it will seek an injunction, statutory damages, “an accounting of all profits from the Defendants’ wrongful activities”, damages for “interference with economic relations and unjust enrichment”, “aggravated, exemplary and punitive damages in the amount of $10,000.00″, “special damages” (whatever they are) plus costs.

Unlike many ISPs who choose to leave their customers in the dark when they are targeted in this fashion, TekSavvy appear to be doing everything in their power to keep people informed. Yesterday the company sent out emails to the billing email addresses of those account holders likely to be affected by the action.

Additionally – and this is to be commended – TekSavvy have also produced a Copyright FAQ which should go a long way to explaining what the current action is all about.

In a statement TekSavvy CEO Marc Gaudrault says he is “puzzled” by the approach taken by Voltage.

“It seems contrary to the government’s intent with copyright reform, which was to discourage file sharing lawsuits against individuals, while still protecting copyright holders’ rights,” Gaudrault says.

“The manner and the timing of this action also seems unusual given that the government recently created a roadmap for addressing file sharing and copyright infringement within its legislation. Its starting point is a notification system to subscribers to discourage infringement without immediate threats of lawsuits or disclosure of their personal information. That system is not yet finalized though. In light of these factors, Voltage’s actions seem odd to us.”

While Gaudrault’s assessment is accurate, those familiar with Voltage’s actions in the United States will probably be less puzzled by this new action in Canada.

Voltage’s aim is simply. They want money – lots of it – and are hoping that their scary damages claims will terrify TekSavvy customers into quietly settling for a few thousand dollars instead of risking a very unlikely court appearance.

However, while statutory damages of US$150,000 help that process along nicely in the United States, the CAD$5,000 maximum in Canada should make people think twice before paying anything.

“From all that I’ve read, non-commercial infringement carries a damage award as low as $100 and as high as $5000 for all infringements. It also appears that the intent is to keep damage awards low in such cases,” Gaudrault explains.

The TekSavvy CEO says that the scale of the Voltage case is unprecedented so as a result the company has retained legal counsel to advise them through the process.

“Know that TekSavvy is not taking this lightly as it affects us too and as always, we believe that making your voice heard is a key component to a healthy internet in Canada. I will be monitoring this situation very closely,” Gaudrault concludes.

This is not the first time that Voltage has targeted Canadian BitTorrent users.

In September 2011 the company applied for an order from the Federal Court in Montreal which would’ve forced three Canadian ISPs – Bell Canada, Cogeco Cable Inc. and Videotron GP – to hand over the personal details of subscribers said to have unlawfully shared The Hurt Locker. However, without explanation Voltage Pictures dropped that lawsuit in March 2012.

Concerned TekSavvy users can find the Copyright FAQ here and further information on recent changes in Canadian Copyright Law here.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Movie studio Voltage Pictures was not only one of the first studios to sue BitTorrent downloaders in the US, it also secured the award for the biggest mass-BitTorrent lawsuit by listing 24,583 alleged infringers at once.

This case dragged on for nearly two years and after collecting an undisclosed number of settlements it was eventually closed last December. It remains unknown how profitable the lawsuit was for the movie studio, but since they haven’t given up on the scheme yet we assume that it wasn’t a financial debacle.

Last week the studio filed a brand new lawsuit in Florida against 2,514 John Doe defendants, who are all accused of downloading The Hurt Locker.

Through this lawsuit the studio wants to obtain a subpoena so they can order ISPs to reveal the identities of the alleged downloaders. These account holders will then receive a settlement offer that generally lies around $3,000, which means that the Hurt Locker makes can receive over 6 million dollars in damages.

While the complaint filed at a federal court in Florida is pretty standard, there are a few details that stand out when we look at the list of sued IP-addresses.

Firstly, all the defendants downloaded the film in 2010. This means that the movie studio has waited two years before filing a lawsuit against the alleged copyright infringers. On top of that, we see that all the 2,514 defendants are subscribers of the same Internet provider, Charter Communications.

It could be that the points above are related. For example, Voltage Pictures may know that Charter keeps IP-address records for more than two years while other ISPs don’t. Another reason for targeting Charter subscribers could be that the movie studio knows that the ISP is not going to object to handing over bulk subscriber details.

Whatever the case, this new lawsuit is worth keeping an eye on.

While The Hurt Locker is a prominent name, this mass-lawsuit is just one of many being filed every week. In total more than 250,000 alleged BitTorrent users have been targeted in the United States and this number continues to increase.

While most of the plaintiffs are adult film studios, more reputable brands such as the major book publisher Wiley & Sons have joined in as well. And last week the first game publisher filed a lawsuit as “Airbus X” makers Aerosoft GmbH targeted 50 downloaders.

Depending on the success of the current cases, the BitTorrent lawsuits may continue for years. Thus far there is no indication that the end is in sight.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

By targeting at least 24,583 alleged BitTorrent users, Voltage Pictures hoped to recoup millions of dollars in settlements to compensate the studio for piracy-related losses. And so it happened.

After former RIAA-lobbyist Judge Beryl Howell signed off on the subpoenas, the suspected infringers were asked to pay thousands of dollars to settle their case, or else.

As the case dragged on, the major roadblock for Voltage Pictures turned out to be the Internet providers, who were often only releasing the personal details of a few dozen defendants each month. As a result, the Hurt Locker makers had to file extension after extension to keep the case alive. Judge Howell eventually ran out of patience and decided not to grant a new extension this month, thereby closing the case.

Although this appears to be good news for the tens of thousands of defendants, a range of questionable actions from Voltage Picture’s law firm Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver suggests that they might be in for a surprise.

Over the past months TorrentFreak talked to several defendants who were notified by their Internet providers that Voltage Pictures had sent a subpoena to reveal their personal details. By itself this is nothing new, were it not for the fact that these people’s IP-addresses were among the thousands that were dismissed from the case weeks earlier.

It turns out that after removing IP-addresses from the complaint, the lawyers were asking the ISPs for identifying information of the account holders anyway. Initially we thought that this must have been an isolated incident, but after contacting some lawyers we heard that it was most certainly not.

Speaking to TorrentFreak, BitTorrent defense lawyer Robert Cashman described the actions as unethical and sanctionable, and told us that the Judge would probably not allow this to happen if she knew what was going on.

“I am having this same issue with a potential client,” Cashman said. “As far as I know they cannot have the names from the ISP as the IP-addresses no longer belong to putative defendants,” he said. “A number of in-house attorneys at one of the ISPs are looking into the issue now to determine whether or not to comply with the request.”

From the people we talked to thus far we heard that at least some ISPs have complied, probably because the ISPs nor the defendants knew that the IP-addresses were no longer listed as defendants. Questionable behavior to say the least, but it gets worse, much worse.

BitTorrent defense lawyer Blair Chintella informed us that aside from going after dismissed defendants, the lawyers are also targeting people who’ve never been listed as a defendant in the first place. In a separate article Chintella provides additional background on the issue, where he believes Voltage Picture’s lawyers are out-of-order.

“Recently I’ve been contacted by one or more people whose alleged IP addresses aren’t listed in the court records,” Chintella says. “This appears to be not only an ethical violation but a legal issue giving rise to one or more claim under state or federal law.”

So it appears that the lawyers were using the court subpoenas to get the personal details of people whose IP-addresses were never listed in any complaint. Although it’s not clear how many times this has occurred, it’s possible that the lawyers went after thousands more people than they told the court.

To get their take on the situation, TorrentFreak contacted law firm Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver, but received no response.

While it’s clear that the practices outlined here warrant further investigation, it is doubtful that they will be looked into as the case is now officially closed. People who have recently received a settlement letter should remain vigilant though, as the Hurt locker makers may start to file individual lawsuits.

Meanwhile, the number of people sued in the US for alleged BitTorrent downloads has surpassed 250,000, and new mass-lawsuits are added every week.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

—

I have been practicing in the area of copyright infringement and specializing in bittorrent cases essentially since they started in the District of Columbia.  I wanted to write this short anecdote to raise awareness to an important issue regarding the Voltage Pictures case (and possibly other cases as well).

I frequently have prospective clients who contact me because their Internet account information is being subpoenaed by Voltage Pictures.  Before I do a consultation, I always verify that the IP address listed on the letter is indeed part of the lawsuit – i.e. that it’s listed in the complaint or a similar document.  However, recently I’ve been contacted by one or more people whose alleged IP addresses aren’t listed in the court records. As I’ll explain below, this appears to be not only an ethical violation but a legal issue giving rise to one or more claim under state or federal law. To better understand it’s useful to know the procedural background for the case.

The initial Voltage Pictures complaint didn’t include a list any “John Doe” IP addresses even though the case was styled: “v. Does 1-5,000.” Usually a plaintiff will attach to a complaint a list of IP addresses in these types of lawsuits so there is at least a “putative” defendant that is being sued as a John Doe. The fact that the plaintiff didn’t do this is arguably improper, but I won’t go into detail on this point.

Needless to say, the first time that the plaintiff mentions any specific IP address is on Exhibit C to the plaintiff’s June 7, 2010 motion that seeks permission to subpoena various ISPs. The motion asks permission to subpoena Internet account information for over 600 IP addresses attached as Exhibit C as well as “any other infringers that plaintiff identifies during the course of this litigation, as Plaintiff’s infringement monitoring efforts are on-going and continuous”. The motion concludes by asking the Court to issue an order permitting discovery in substantially the same form as the “proposed order” attached to the motion. The only problem, however, is that the plaintiff failed to attach a proposed order.

For reason unexplained (perhaps a simply mistake – judges are human too), the Court nonetheless granted the plaintiff’s motion on June 25, 2010. In doing so, it didn’t specify whether it was giving the plaintiff permission to conduct discovery regarding any IP addresses detected in the future (apart and in addition to those listed on Exhibit C). Perhaps unsurprisingly, the plaintiff either didn’t notice or – or noticed and didn’t seek clarification from the Court, and continued to subpoena the information for thousands of IP addresses in addition to those listed on Exhibit C.

For reasons unexplained yet again, it was not until April 4, 2011, approximately ten month later, that the Court clarified its previous order by stating the following:

. . .the plaintiff construes the June 25, 2010 . . . Order . . . as not restricted to the 687  specific IP addresses listed in Exhibit C to the motion. Rather, plaintiff construes this order as granting plaintiff leave to “conduct discovery on all of the Doe Defendants . . . that Plaintiff Voltage identifies during the course of this litigation . . .  The basis for this  broad interpretation of the June 25, 2010 Expedited Discovery Order apparently stems from a  footnote that the plaintiff included in its original motion. . . . The broad subpoena authority sought by the plaintiff in a footnote in its motion filing, however, was not specifically addressed, let alone expressly sanctioned, in the June 25, 2010 Minute Order approving expedited discovery. In short, the plaintiff’s broad interpretation of the June 25, 2010 Expedited Discovery Order is incorrect.  The plaintiff has only been granted leave to seek identifying information for those IP addresses that have been specifically proffered as relevant to this action by being listed on Exhibit C of plaintiff’s mot ion for expedited discovery. ECF No. 4.

In response to this new order, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 31, 2011 listing over 24,500 IP addresses and on July 19, 2011 asked the Court for permission to conduct discovery regarding them. On July 25, 2011, the Court clarified that a previous order entered on March 31, 2011 had already given it permission to subpoena ISPs for the contact information regarding any IP address listed in an amended complaint (the Court mistakenly says March but the order was actually entered on May 31). Following this clarification, the plaintiff continued to subpoena the account information for thousands of Internet subscribers.

I wanted to write this short analysis because recently I’ve been contacted by one or more people whose alleged IP address isn’t listed in Exhibit C to the plaintiff’s motion seeking to conduct discovery nor the amended complaint. This is a serious issue because the Court’s July 25, 2011 order should have clarified that the plaintiff is only permitted to conduct discovery with respect to the IP addresses listed in the lawsuit as John Does. If this has happened to you, please speak with an attorney in your jurisdiction because may have a claim for “abuse of process” (versus the plaintiff or DGW) or a claim under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 47 U.S.C. § 551 or other federal or state laws (versus the plaintiff, DGWor your ISP).

Unfortunately, if you’ve already settled you likely don’t have a claim because Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver (the plaintiff’s counsel) usually insists on completely one-sided settlement agreements (another good reason to hire an attorney to negotiate for you). If you’ve already settled and feel gipped, you might consider filing a bar complaint with the District of Columbia to make sure that this doesn’t happen to others. I recommend speaking with an attorney beforehand, however, to ensure that you aren’t breaching any confidentiality provision.

With everyone’s help, we may not be able to kill these ugly troll lawsuits altogether but at least we can level the playing field a little.

Yours truly,

Blair Chintella
www.chintellalaw.com

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Since last year, Voltage Pictures, the makers of Hurt Locker, have been working with the Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver law firm (better known as the U.S. Copyright Group) to target Internet users who allegedly shared their Oscar-winning movie online.

Give us thousands of dollars in settlement, they say, and we won’t ruin your life with an expensive lawsuit.

Last month Voltage exported their scheme north to Canada and through the Federal Court in Montreal the obtained an order which forced three Canadian ISPs – Bell Canada, Cogeco Cable Inc. and Videotron GP – to hand over the personal details of subscribers Voltage claim infringed their copyrights.

Following a review of the IP addresses provided to the first ISP, Bell Canada (shown below), an eyebrow-raising nugget of information has come to light.

The third IP on the list – 207.61.47.217 – looks much like any other. It is accused of sharing the movie using uTorrent v2.2.1.0 on May 4th 2011, and in itself that is nothing unusual. But further investigation shows that this particular IP address has a rather famous owner.

As shown here, not only is the IP provided by Bell Canada it can also be traced back to the Bell Centre. That’s because it’s operated by none other than the Montreal Canadiens hockey team.

The big question now is whether Goudreau Gage Dubuc LLP, the law firm hired by Voltage to carry out their Canadian shakedown, will send their usual settlement demands to Montreal Canadiens. If they do, this could get very interesting indeed.

It is highly likely that many individuals are able to obtain Internet access via 217.canadiens.com, the domain from which the infringement was allegedly logged. The problematic issue of pinning an infringement to an individual on a multiple access IP was highlighted perfectly in the Swedish Film Institute case recently. Furthermore, Montreal Canadiens have very, very deep pockets and lawyers on tap.

Hockey fans and opponents of these copyright shakedowns will be hoping that this particular Hurt Locker timebomb is dealt with by Canadiens via a boarding or their enforcer, rather than being subjected to an empty net goal, as Voltage might prefer.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Three Canadian ISPs have been ordered by a court to hand over the personal details of their subscribers to Voltage Pictures.

However, unlike in the United States where tenst of thousands of downloaders were targeted, the Canadian case only covers 30 IP-addresses for now.

Or we should say 29, as the list that was cent to Cogeco includes 2 identical IP-addresses.

If none of the subscribers connected to the IPs appeals the Judge’s decision, their personal information will be handed over by their Internet providers.

—

* 10 Bell IPs
* 10 Cogeco IPs
* 10 Videotron IPs

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Some of the most high-profile customers of the law firm – who for the purposes of their settlement work are known as the U.S. Copyright Group – are Voltage Pictures, the makers of the Oscar-winning Hurt Locker.

Now it seems that the United States just isn’t a big enough market for settlements, so Voltage have taken their pay-up-or-else lawsuits north – and expanded into Canada.

Earlier, through law firm Goudreau Gage Dubuc LLP, Voltage Pictures applied for an order from the Federal Court in Montreal which would force three Canadian ISPs – Bell Canada, Cogeco Cable Inc. and Videotron GP – to hand over the personal details of subscribers said to have infringed its copyrights.

“Voltage Pictures LLC owns the copyright of the film ‘Hurt Locker’. The defendants have copied and distributed the film via the Internet without the permission of Voltage Pictures LLC,” says the order.

Voltage adds that although it has obtained IP addresses, without the help of Canadian ISPs the studio cannot convert them to real-life identities.

“Voltage Pictures LLC requests permission to interview internet service providers in advance in writing so that they disclose the names and addresses of customers who match the IP addresses already obtained,” says Voltage.

“Once it has identified these customers, Voltage Pictures LLC may send notices and, where appropriate, add these individuals as defendants in this action.”

On August 29th, the Federal Court in Montreal granted the order and gave the trio of ISPs just two weeks to hand over the names of subscribers. Since today is September 9th, and the weekend is almost upon us, one might assume that the details have already been handed over, or will be by Monday.

According to Canadian lawyer Michael Geist, there is no indication that the ISPs challenged the court order or that any public interests were given the opportunity to intervene.

“The prospect of thousands of Canadian peer-to-peer file sharing lawsuits – with potential liability of tens of thousands dollars per person for a single movie – highlights why the government was right in Bill C-32 to reform the statutory damages provision to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial infringement,” writes Geist.

“Non-commercial infringement was capped under the bill at $5000 for all infringements, though it can go far lower. This case confirms that mass lawsuits with the threat of thousands in liability is a real possibility in Canada and why changes to the law are needed.”

Canadian Internet users, with their relaxed attitude towards their culture of file-sharing, are likely to be outraged by the action taken by Voltage. Certainly one to watch.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

As it turns out they sued a dead person, which could be an indication that the defendant didn’t download anything at all.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg really.

Since the lawyers have started sending out subpoenas many defendants have written to the court claiming their innocence.

Ironically, many of them give away their personal details themselves, something a defendant should never do. By doing so they are basically turning themselves in, as the lawyers don’t really care whether they downloaded anything or not. They want your money either way.

It wouldn’t surprise us if these people who signed their full name under the letter to the court , will be the first to receive a settlement offer.

Below is a collection of a few of the responses the court received from Hurt locker defendants recently, collected by ARS.

The Pinestead Reef Resort in Traverse City, Michigan:

We object to the suit given the fact that we operate a Timeshare resort named Pinstead Brief Resort that is 46 units all of which have a Wi-Fi connection using our IP address. We have numerous users at various times and are unable to monitor or control what they are doing on the computer in their room… I can assure you that the movie was not downloaded from any of the 5 computers that we use in our office on a daily basis.

Michelle from Farmington, Minnesota:

I did not download this movie. I had a wireless router on my computer at the time the Plaintiff alleges that their movie was downloaded by my IP address. Charter had notified me at that time that the download may have been done from my IP address and I removed the wireless router to avoid any further activity.

Steven from Cleveland, Tennessee:

I have no idea why my account info/IP address is associated with this action. I have not downloaded nor certainly have not [sic] distributed any copyrighted material such as “Hurt Locker,” named in this action.

MidAtlanticBroadband Hospitality Services of Baltimore, Maryland:

MidAtlanticBroadband Hospitality Services is filing an objection to provide information as our information is irrelevant, as we are not the end-user nor do we have any information related to the actual usage of this IP address.

Ryan from Waunakee, Wisconsin:

I have no knowledge of the alleged movie download. I had a problem with my network security settings in the past which has recently been upgraded and password-protected. I am sorry for any damages or misfortune the Plaintiff has incurred.

A woman named Sarah, no address given:

I am objecting to the disclosure and release of my identifying information by Charter Communications Inc. on the grounds that I’m not the owner nor have I ever owned the computer with the MAC IP address [sic] that they are claiming illegally downloaded the copyrighted work. When this download took place I was living in a college apartment with roommates and we all shared the wireless network. I had opened the account and my roommates each paid me a portion of the monthly bill since we all shared the same wireless network. When I contacted Charter Communications Inc. regarding the subpoena to inform them they had the wrong person named for the download they said it could have been anyone in the apartment complex and that I was named as a potential defendant due to my being the one that set up the account.

Ann from St. Louis, Missouri:

As a soon to be 70-year-old woman, I can assure the court that I have neither downloaded or distributed ANY copyrighted work as alleged in this lawsuit. Thank you for your consideration.

Rick from St. Louis, Missouri:

I did not download this movie. From a telephone conversation with Charter Communications’ technical customer service I learned it is possible someone outside my home may have compromised the IP address and downloaded the movie without my knowledge.

Charter further advised me to place a lock on the wireless router to help prevent people from hacking into the system and using my IP address. This has now been done.

Take pay cuts over the past years, having a disabled wife and struggling to support a family, I do not have the money to hire an attorney to protect myself especially in this case where I did nothing wrong.

Ed from Sauk Rapids, Minnesota:

Up until currently my wireless router had only the default security set and no encryption enabled. I live in a large neighborhood where many people could have purposely or inadvertently connected to this access point. My children are 11 and 7 and are not computer savvy to be able to do this. I have also spoken to them about piracy of media since. I do apologize to the complainant that connection [sic] was involved in this activity.

Gabriel from San Gabriel, California:

All of the equipments [sic] in our home have been provided and connected by Charter Communications, Inc. I do not own any wireless equipment. I do not download movies or music from any computer or any equipment. I do not engage in copying music or movies. I am not in the business of selling any form of media. I have not had any guests that engage in any illegal activities. I strongly oppose all illegal copying of any copyrighted materials.

Arcadiana Cable Advertising from Opelousas, Louisiana:

We’re a small company with 6 employees, and do not have any sort of IT personnel, therefore, our wireless router is not a password-protected router. We have seen several individuals in the parking lot obviously using our unprotected service. Furthermore, the time of infringement was 7:40 AM. Our business opens daily at 8:30 AM, thereby making that time highly suspect.

Richard from Peru, New York:[Explaining a problem with his Vonage setup that Routinely required a router reset.]

This process would open up our wireless network to anyone since it removed the encryption to our wireless network. Our wireless router could be open to the public for days before I would notice that it was not protected areas would normally caught my attention, that are wireless network was open, was how slow it was during typical web browsing…

I truly believe that no person that is part of my family downloaded the copyrighted work known as Hurt Locker. I have searched all the computers within my residence and have not found a file or folder with that name. I also know that is NOT a typical movie that my family members would watch. Being a Gulf War Veteran, I have no desire to watch such a movie. Just like the movie Blackhawk Down, I heard it was a good movie but I will never watch it, another movie that is too close to home.

Currently we have purchased just over 500 DVD and Blue Ray [sic] movies which in itself should indicate that we support the movie industry. We also have a current Netflix account and a Charter account.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

By targeting 24,583 alleged BitTorrent users, Voltage Pictures set a new record in the ongoing mass-filesharing lawsuits in the U.S.

The Hurt locker makers initially sued 5,000 people but have recently updated their complaint.

Through the court they hope to get the identities of the alleged copyright infringers, so they can suggest them to settle the case for several thousands of dollars.

We managed to get a full list of the 24,583 IP-addresses (>400 pages) who are accused of downloading the Oscar-winning film.

The document is searchable, so if you’re worried that you may be one of the targets, here’s your chance to find out.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The initial customers of the lawyers – who are also known as the U.S. Copyright Group – were relatively unknown indie film producers. But this changed when the makers of the Oscar-winning Hurt Locker (Voltage Pictures) joined up and sued 5,000 alleged file-sharers.

Voltage Pictures always threatened that this figure was just the start, and it now turns out that they were speaking the truth. In their quest to recoup their claimed losses, the studio has now added nearly 20,000 new defendants to the lawsuit, bringing the total up to 24,583.

This turns the Hurt Locker case into the largest BitTorrent lawsuit in history, breaking the two week old record set by The Expendables case earlier this month.

In a status report obtained by TorrentFreak, Voltage Pictures lawyers give the U.S. District Court of Columbia an overview of the massive list of alleged BitTorrent downloaders they filed complaints against. This report reveals that most defendants are subscribers of Comcast (10,532), followed by Verizon (5,239), Charter (2,699) and Time Warner (1,750).

The report also provides details on the agreements the lawyers have struck with various ISPs regarding the release of subscribers’ personal information. There is currently no agreement with Comcast, while Charter has promised to look up 150 IP-addresses a month and Verizon 100 a month for all ongoing BitTorrent lawsuits.

The above indicates that it may take several years before some ISPs hand over the requested information. It would take Verizon more than a decade to look up all the personal details in the various BitTorrent lawsuits, which begs the question of how long an ISP is allowed to store such private details.

The Hurt Locker case is currently being handled by former RIAA-lobbyist Judge Beryl Howell. She now has to decide if Voltage Pictures is allowed to proceed their legal endeavor and under what restrictions.

During the course of the year many of the defendants in the Hurt Locker case who were already subpoenaed have claimed innocence. However, last week Judge Howell decided to dismiss all 119 motions to dismiss, quash, and for protective orders en masse, adding them to the pool of targets.

Defendants whose ISPs give up their personal details are expected to receive a settlement offer from Voltage Pictures. The ultimate goal is not to take any of the individual cases to court, but to get alleged infringers to pay a substantial cash settlement to make legal action go away.

The math shows that this scheme could turn out to be extremely profitable for the parties involved. If ‘only’ 10,000 of the alleged infringers eventually pay a $2,000 settlement this would bring in $20 million. In comparison, that’s more than the $17 million The Hurt Locker grossed at the U.S. box office.

Update: Here’s a full list of the 24,584 IP-addresses included in the complaint.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.