California Judge Says BitTorrent Users Don't "Act In Concert," Can't Be Sued In Bulk
Suing file sharers in bulk has become the hot new thing in antipiracy cases, as it allows content providers to associate names with IP addresses quickly, but that tactic just suffered a major blow in the Golden State. The physical locations of P2P defendants have been a bone of contention in courts. Steele Hansmeier, an antipiracy law firm, used geolocation to confirm that the 188 porn pilferers named in its mass lawsuit actually lived in California, but the judge presiding over the case still axed 187 defendants off the suit, making it a single-party case.
Pirates who download the same file from separate torrents have nothing in common other than that they downloaded the same work, so they can’t be plaintiffs in the same lawsuit, Spero said. More importantly, Ars Technica reports that Spero ruled that even multiple people who downloaded the same torrent can’t be sued en masse. From the judge’s ruling (warning, legalese ahead):
Second, even if the IP addresses at issue in this motion all came from a single swarm (Maximum PC note: a swarm is a group of peers distributing a torrent), there is no evidence to suggest that each of the addresses "acted in concert" with all of the others. In fact, the nearly six-week span covering the activity associated with each of the addresses calls into question whether there was ever common activity linking the addresses in this case. In this age of instant digital gratification, it is difficult to imagine, let alone believe, that an alleged infringer of the copyrighted work would patiently wait six weeks to collect the bits of the work necessary to watch the work as a whole. At the very least, there is no proof that bits from each of these addresses were ever assembled into a single swarm. As the court previously explained, under this court's precedent regarding other file sharing protocols, merely infringing the same copyrighted work over this period is not enough.
Judge Spero also said that not only would each of the 188 pirates probably have different defenses, they may also live miles away from each other, so it would be unfair to lump them together in a mass lawsuit.The ruling could end up being a major blow against the practice of suing file sharers in bulk.
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
![]()
mysterymantis
August 29, 2011 at 7:02pm
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.
![]()
Carlidan
September 01, 2011 at 2:49am
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.
![]()
TerribleToaster
September 01, 2011 at 5:55am
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.
![]()
Carlidan
September 01, 2011 at 5:10pm
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.
![]()
TerribleToaster
September 02, 2011 at 5:31am
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.
![]()
Carlidan
September 02, 2011 at 3:27pm
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.
![]()
TerribleToaster
September 06, 2011 at 6:18am
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.
![]()
Brdn666
August 29, 2011 at 6:55pm
I'm wondering how they even decided who that one guy is going to be.
![]()
TerribleToaster
August 30, 2011 at 5:32am
Probably was the first person listed in the suit, which means it was most likely alphabetical. Now my question is, first name or last?
![]()
TerribleToaster
August 29, 2011 at 10:48am
[quotation][witty comment][extrapolation][conclusion][witty comment about Steele's mother][smiley face]
Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook
Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.
















