On May 10, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In article <banlktima-zpm3bkxodtxmgxysj_fkys...@mail.gmail.com>, chip > <chip.g...@gmail.com> writes > >> Interesting, especially after this: >> >> http://torrentfreak.com/ip-address-not-a-person-bittorrent-case-judge-says-110503/ > > It depends whether you are suing the subscriber or the downloader (maybe both > can be liable in some cases). Also whether the subscriber was running an open > Wifi (normally not recommended), which is a matter of evidential fact to be > explored in each particular case. >
And, perhaps most critically, which judge you come before. (It will take a while, and maybe a visit to the Supreme Court, before you can expect legal consistency here.) Note also that these generally do not go to trial. Regards Marshall >> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Marshall Eubanks <t...@multicasttech.com> >> wrote: >>> A Federal Judge has decided to let the "U.S. Copyright Group" subpoena ISPs >>> over 23,000 alleged downloads of some >>> Sylvester Stallone movie I have never heard of; subpoenas are expected to >>> go out this week. >>> >>> I thought that there might be some interest in the list of these addresses : >>> >>> http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/05/expendibleipaddresses.pdf >>> >>> If you have IP addresses on this list, expect to receive papers shortly. >>> >>> Here is more of the backstory : >>> >>> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/biggest-bittorrent-case/ >>> >>> This is turning into quite a legal racket (get order $ 3000 for sending a >>> threatening letter); I expect to see a lot >>> more of this until some sense returns to the legal system. > > Attempts a bit like this have come unstuck in the UK. Search for "Davenport > Lyons" and "ACS Law" > -- > Roland Perry > >
