Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Joinder Issues in BitTorrent Copyright Litigation
Over the past several years, there has been a national flurry of civil actions brought primarily by pornographic filmmakers alleging copyright infringement by individual file-sharers using the BitTorrent' computer protocol. As one federal court noted, hundreds of thousands of John Does have been sued across the county since mid-2010, with copyright holders attempting to assert claims against unknown defendants identified by their IP addresses by joining them, in large numbers, into single actions. Typically, the copyright holders allege that users illegally downloaded, reproduced and distributed at least a portion of the film at issue using BitTorrent, a peer-to-peer protocol that allows users to transfer large files on the Internet.
Some commentators have characterized such cases as “copyright trolling” ' where a copyright holder files a mass infringement suit and subpoenas identifying information for anonymous Doe defendants, intending to send demand letters and achieve prompt, small settlements rather than actually litigating the claims. At least one court has echoed this view, even imposing sanctions against the copyright holders and their attorneys for certain bad faith conduct. See Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe, No. 12-8333 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2013). However, not all suits against anonymous BitTorrent users necessarily involve an improper intent or even adult film companies. See, e.g., John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Doe 1-22, 2013 WL 1091315 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2013) (related suits over unauthorized copying and distributing of several books using BitTorrent); ReFx Audio Software, Inc. v. Does 1-82, 2013 WL 500478 (D. Colo. Feb. 13, 2013) (unauthorized distribution of software using BitTorrent).
This article discusses BitTorrent generally, as well as joinder issues that have arisen with the filing of mass copyright suits based upon the theory that each of the accused infringers participated in the same BitTorrent “swarm.”
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?