California Judge Says BitTorrent Users Don't "Act In Concert," Can't Be Sued In Bulk

13

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

mysterymantis

You'd think that they would have to dissmiss it all, all 188 defendants, as they are all charged with the same thing.  If you can dissmiss against one conspiritor, you have to dissmiss all similar charges based on similar evidence against all conspiritors. At least that is how I think it works, I could be wrong.

 

But then, this is CA.

avatar

Carlidan

If you read it closely, it said you cannot lump all defedants into a large lawsuit. I never said they couldn't sue them. Just can't lump them together.  The last guy was just the unlucky SOB.

avatar

TerribleToaster

 

He/She is referring to a how if you charge 3 people with a crime in a single trial and it ends up that two of them are innocent, if the jury rules the defendants innocent the 3rd guy gets away regardless of his guilt or innocence. This is because the trial was if 3 people committed said crime so all 3 must be charged together (or something like that). However, I don't know if this applies to suing or, even if it applies, if it could be applied to the judge’s ruling. Ask a lawyer.

 

avatar

Carlidan

Not necessarily. Just like in a murder trail. If you had 3 defendants and charge with the same crime, doesn't necessarily they will get the same sentence nor does mean all defendants will get a guilty verdict. It's all about what evidence they have on said defendants. 

avatar

TerribleToaster

 

That would be because the 3 defendants aren’t being charged as a group. I did some searching around and what (I believe he is, anyway), referring to is called a RICO case (named after the RICO Act or the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act). It basically let's prosecutors charge people en masse for many crime by associating them all together as though it were a racketeering activity and gives the prosecutors a great deal of power in their prosecution. By implicating one person, you implicate everyone else in the RICO case. Essentially, the judge decided this can't be a RICO case since these people couldn't possibly be colluding in a racketeering activity. But a RICO case is a 1 way street, if you implicate someone(s) in a RICO case and the it is decided that it doesn't meet the requirements needed for a RICO case those people implicated will still be charge individually with the crime while the rest get off scott free, though they can still be tried for the crime again, just on a case by case basis.

 

avatar

Carlidan

OMG really, the prosection is trying to prosecute them as a RICO case. Their ego must of been inflated to believe that would fly. Most RICO cases are used when you want to charge the mob or gang for criminal activities. Not individual people downloading software. 

avatar

TerribleToaster

Sadily, this is not the first time. There has been an apparent rise in the number of filed RICO cases against people who are not part of gangs/criminal organizations (at least in the tradintional sense) since the early/mid 90's. At least they aren't going to let them abuse this tool against filesharers.

avatar

Slurpy

Man, it must suck to be that 188th guy.

avatar

Brdn666

I'm wondering how they even decided who that one guy is going to be.

avatar

Brad Chacos

That's exactly what I was thinking.

avatar

TerribleToaster

 

Probably was the first person listed in the suit, which means it was most likely alphabetical. Now my question is, first name or last?

 

avatar

TerribleToaster

[quotation][witty comment][extrapolation][conclusion][witty comment about Steele's mother][smiley face]

avatar

Dman222123222

Well said.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.