Federal Court Blocks Movie Industry "John Doe" suits - P2P-Zone

Drakonix · 24-11-04, 02:50 AM

From EFF:
Court Blocks Movie Studios' Bulldozer Legal Strategy

Northern California - A federal judge in California has put
a roadblock in front of the movie studios' lawsuits
targeting filesharers.

Last week, members of the Motion Picture Association of
America (MPAA) filed 11 lawsuits against hundreds of
people they accused of using file-sharing networks to share
infringing copies of movies. They sued groups of "Does"
identified by numerical IP address and requested discovery
of names from the users' Internet Service Providers (ISPs).
A Northern District of California judge found this
bulldozer approach improper, ordering that the case
for Does 1-12 should be put on hold for all but one of
the defendants.

Judge William Alsup ruled that because claims against the
12 defendants were unrelated, yoking the defendants
together into one big case was improper. "Such joinder may
be an attempt to circumvent the filing fees by grouping
defendants into arbitrarily-joined actions but it could
nonetheless appear improper under Rule 20," the order
states. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed
friend-of-the-court briefs objecting to similar misjoinder
in many of the cases filed by the Recording Industry
Association of America (RIAA) against alleged infringers.

"This decision helps to give due process rights to the
Internet users accused of infringement," said EFF Staff
Attorney Wendy Seltzer. "Lumping them together makes it
more difficult for everyone to defend against these
claims." EFF is also concerned about the movie studios'
failure to produce evidence of infringement against even
Doe #1 in this case.

For this release:
<http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2004_11.php#002147>

Court order in Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v.
Does 1-12:
<http://www.eff.org/cgi/tiny?urlID=339>

JackSpratts · 24-11-04, 08:21 AM

Failure to produce evidence, attempting to circumvent filing fees. These people stand on the law? Imagine that.

- js.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

24-11-04, 02:50 AM	#1
Drakonix Just Draggin' Along Join Date: Apr 2000 Posts: 1,210	Federal Court Blocks Movie Industry "John Doe" suits From EFF: Court Blocks Movie Studios' Bulldozer Legal Strategy Northern California - A federal judge in California has put a roadblock in front of the movie studios' lawsuits targeting filesharers. Last week, members of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) filed 11 lawsuits against hundreds of people they accused of using file-sharing networks to share infringing copies of movies. They sued groups of "Does" identified by numerical IP address and requested discovery of names from the users' Internet Service Providers (ISPs). A Northern District of California judge found this bulldozer approach improper, ordering that the case for Does 1-12 should be put on hold for all but one of the defendants. Judge William Alsup ruled that because claims against the 12 defendants were unrelated, yoking the defendants together into one big case was improper. "Such joinder may be an attempt to circumvent the filing fees by grouping defendants into arbitrarily-joined actions but it could nonetheless appear improper under Rule 20," the order states. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed friend-of-the-court briefs objecting to similar misjoinder in many of the cases filed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) against alleged infringers. "This decision helps to give due process rights to the Internet users accused of infringement," said EFF Staff Attorney Wendy Seltzer. "Lumping them together makes it more difficult for everyone to defend against these claims." EFF is also concerned about the movie studios' failure to produce evidence of infringement against even Doe #1 in this case. For this release: <http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2004_11.php#002147> Court order in Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Does 1-12: <http://www.eff.org/cgi/tiny?urlID=339> __________________ Copyright means the copy of the CD/DVD burned with no errors. I will never spend a another dime on content that I can’t use the way I please. If I can’t copy it to my hard drive and play it using the devices I want, when and where I want, I won’t be buying it. Period. They can all take their DRM, broadcast flags, rootkits, and Compact Discs that aren’t really compact discs and shove them up their bottom-lines.

24-11-04, 08:21 AM	#2
JackSpratts Join Date: May 2001 Location: New England Posts: 10,017	Failure to produce evidence, attempting to circumvent filing fees. These people stand on the law? Imagine that. - js.