Mass P2P Lawsuits: Names of Copyright Infringers Must Now Be Released
A Washington DC federal judge has changed the fate of P2P (Person to Person file sharing) lawyers, favoring them where mass file-sharing lawsuits are concerned. The judge has let cases move forward and required ISPs to provide names of those involved to be released on schedule.
Common arguments for those opposing such lawsuits include the following reasons:
- Defendants are “improperly joined” by not acting together breaking the law
- People involved in the cases are outside the jurisdiction of the federal court where they are being sued
- The availability of the First Amendment (Right to Anonymous speech)
Judge Beryl Howell of Washington DC rejected the three arguments above – at the moment – in favor of the P2P lawyers who filed the mass lawsuits.
The ruling combines three pending mass lawsuits. The judge also ruled that it was acceptable for a multitude of unknown defendants to be sued noting that they are “logically related”. The judge justifies that individual filing of such cases would cost too much as well as limit copyright holders in protecting their rights. Furthermore, defendants can later on prove themselves to be separate from the rest, but that it would be easier to join them together at the beginning of the investigation process.
Jurisdiction is still vague, where geolocation only tells where these defendants might be. Tools used to look them up are still inaccurate and whether personal jurisdiction would be the best way to go is still up for debate. In the process of the lawsuits, defendants will be given a chance to file for counter motions if they are not within that jurisdiction.
In regard to the reasons why the three opposing arguments were dismissed, the judge ruled the First Amendment was a weak argument since there was only minimal “expressive activity” involved. In favour of the copyright holders, they have good reasons why they want to seek for these violators.
Benefitting from this decision was the US Copyright group, who brought the lawsuits forward. Although separate cases may later be required, as well as the huge amount involved in filing them apart from the time and effort that will be involved, the early stage of litigation was a good indication that despite that only a single judge so far has agreed for such cases to push through, the opportunity paves way for rights holders to seek for justice.
Law School Exam Format: How to Use Old Tests to Your Advantage
Before you rush into making a super outline, anticipate the exam format.
- A closed-book exam requires a simple, blackletter law outline that you can readily memorize in your head.
- An open-book exam might require an more extensive outline with case holding keyed to a particular issue, and cross-referenced with a Table of Content organized by legal issues.
Look at the practice questions or old exam questions. Are the exams issue-spotters, short answers, or lengthy multiple-issue fact pattern requiring extensive case planning and legal analysis?
- Issue spotters: meticulously index your Table of Contents by issue and spend time anticipating what type of legal issues are likely to come up on the exam. Group the issues that are likely to appear together, and list the black letter laws or case holdings as well as exceptions/limitations, if applicable.
- Short answers: memorize the key fact patterns and practice writing black letter laws that get straight to the point. Work on writing short paragraphs explaining how the facts apply to the case at hand and the likely outcome of the case (or strength of the client’s case).
- Lengthy, multi-issue fact pattern: this requires a lot of imagination and creativity. Cluster similar cases and/or rules and see if you can create a story that began with one legal issue followed by subsequent legal questions. Try to solve this story and come up with legal arguments to support your argument and counter legal arguments. Poke holes at your own theory.
Studying by first year subjects:
- Civil Procedure – Learn how to apply the FRCP rules in different stages of litigation.
- Criminal Law – Learn to apply the theories and memorize the criteria (mens rea, actus rea) for various types of crimes such as homicide, larceny, battery, assault, and any applicable excuse or justification (e.g., test for insanity, self defense, emotional distress, defense of others, etc.)
- Property – Learn the black letter rules of present, future, concurrent estates, landlord/tenant, covenants, equitable servitude, easements, and adverse possession.
- Constitutional Law – Learn to apply different Constitutional analysis (e.g., Equal Protection, Due Process), tests and standards (e.g., strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, reasonable standard), separation of powers (enumerated powers and limitations of each branch), and federalism.
- Contracts – Learn to spot the issues in various stages such as formation of contract, party’s rights and responsibilities, mistake, excuse, impossibility, and breach. Remember the rules governing the parties (minors, incapacitated, deceased, merchants-UCC, consumers), types of contracts (personal service, goods, bilateral, unilateral), special obligations (loyalty, secrets of the trade), and conflicts of law (which state rule governs). Pay attention to remedies and whether the contract is flawed or unenforceable due to ambiguous language or mistake.
- Torts – Learn about the black letter laws for intentional torts and negligence.
[thanks to shelley's case via cc]
Attorney Evan Stone Prevented From Filing Mass Lawsuits in Texas
There will be no more mass lawsuits in Texas for Internet file-sharing after the mass lawsuits of attorney Evan Stone. Stone, a Texas attorney from Denton, filed individual subpoenas for each individual violating anti-piracy law. After convincing the anime distributor FUNimation to use the same technique he was using with Lucas Entertainment on gay pornography torrent cases, Texas has now decided to deny multiple filings of lawsuits.
With the 16 pending cases filed in the Northern District of Texas, 13 of them have anonymous defendants and have been acquitted. Stone is now faced with re-filing “individual complaints” against them within 30 days, adding up to $4,550 worth of filing fees, apart from the time spent putting together the paperwork for each of them.
Judge Ferguson states that the cases filed for animation company FUNimation cannot be proved to be related to each other or that they were done as a group in the infringement suit. They were done individually and therefore should be filed individually.
This meant that for Stone, only 1 from the 1,337 filed was left.
Judge Ferguson goes on to say that there is not enough evidence to prove that just because the individuals all used BitTorrent, in other words utilizing a common tool for file sharing, this does not necessarily bind them together. The judge justifies further that each defendant would most likely have a different defense strategy against the charges.
After much success for Stone, this new development has become a huge problem for his business. In fact, the only case that was not dismissed by a judge was one that Stone himself dismissed. This was the very case where he issued subpoenas without approval.
In a personal e-mail to Paul Levy of Public Citizen, Evan Stone assures him that despite the roadblocks recently put up in his way, he will continue to help his clients to seek justice against online piracy of their products.
