Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy Movies The Courts

Judge Prevents 23,322 Filesharing Does From Being Sued For Now 199

Posted by timothy
from the bucks-better-be-on-warning dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Judge overseeing the US Copyright Group's lawsuit against 23,000 individuals sharing 'The Expendables' has shut the door on progress. In a ruling made yesterday, the judge has ordered the US Copyright Group to show cause as to how all 23,322 fall under his Court's jurisdiction. Considering the US Copyright Group's failure in the past to show cause on jurisdiction, this could be the beginning of the end."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Prevents 23,322 Filesharing Does From Being Sued For Now

Comments Filter:
  • by wintercolby (1117427) <winter.colby@gmail. c o m> on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @11:31AM (#36375566)
    Pardon my ignorance, but can anyone say what "23,322 Filesharing Does" are?
    • by The MAZZTer (911996) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (tzzagem)> on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @11:32AM (#36375600) Homepage
      "John Doe" is a generic term for an unidentified or unknown individual, in this case shortened to "Doe".
      • I'm damn glad I didn't say anything about bucks, hunting season, or road kill then. Thanks for explaining it, the title really could have been worded better.
        • by S.O.B. (136083)

          I'm damn glad I didn't say anything about bucks, hunting season, or road kill then. Thanks for explaining it, the title really could have been worded better.

          Hunting season?

          Rabbit season! Duck season! FIRE!!!

      • by TeknoHog (164938)
        Just like "Peer" is a generic term for an unidentified Internet user in Norway.
    • by Nidi62 (1525137)
      23,322 unnamed (read: unknown and unidentified) defendants. When a person is unknown, they are referred to as John/Jane Doe.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @11:35AM (#36375642)

      Doe, a deer, a female deer.

      Deer are notorious for running file sharing software, it's actually what got Bambi killed.

    • by Harold Halloway (1047486) on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @11:36AM (#36375648)

      Downloaders on a deer-to-deer file-sharing network.

      • I had no-eye-deer that was how it worked.
      • Imagine how many bucks the MPAA could have made if it were not for these people.
      • by Mashiki (184564)

        BAHRAMYOU! We ewe's are in the network, chewin' on your grains!

      • Runaway legal system brakes in time for 22,000 filesharing Does.

    • "Doe" as in "John Doe" as in they are anonymous for the time being, because USCG has not been able to determine who they are.
    • by hoytak (1148181)

      It's the new slogan of the pirate bay, similar to Motorola's "Droid Does" slogan. The 23322 is elite speak for zeezz, but you'd have to get them to explain that one.

    • by jd2112 (1535857)

      Pardon my ignorance, but can anyone say what "23,322 Filesharing Does" are?

      Doe: A deer. A female deer.

      I guess lawsuits against the bucks can proceed. Who would have figured that a lackluster action film with over-the-hill actors would be so popular with woodland creatures...

    • by damnfuct (861910)
      I imagine it as a rather large herd of female deer that have a damaged set of morals
  • Ridiculous (Score:3, Informative)

    by Lunaritian (2018246) on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @11:32AM (#36375608)
    I wonder how many people they still will sue until they realize that piracy can't be stopped anymore except by shutting down the whole Internet.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Shutting down the whole internet wouldn't stop it either.

      • People have been forever. Shakespeare was a pirate. As were most playwrites of that age. They would literally sit in the audience and copy the play down as it was being performed.
      • by nschubach (922175)

        Don't copy that floppy!

    • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @11:40AM (#36375716)
      Damages awarded in lawsuits are so lucrative that people like USCG would never want to see an end to file sharing. Their business is making money by suing people, and they are getting bad directors like Uwe Boll on board. If people suddenly stopped sharing movies, USCG would go out of business, although they might try a few lawsuits anyway just to keep themselves propped up (e.g. people discussing a movie's script on a forum).
      • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @12:24PM (#36376272)
        They only make money by keeping costs down. To keep costs down, the USCG takes shortcuts like suing a whole group instead of individuals. The filing fees saved are potentially in the millions. Unfortunately for them, that is not always proper. You can't lump people in groups for your own convenience; now they have to show that at they very least, that all 20,000 John Does are in the Court's jurisdiction.
    • by jonbryce (703250)

      Mozart managed to pirate Allegri's Misereri from the Sistine Chapel in Holy Week 1770 using only his ears and his memory.
      He attended the Tenebrae service where it was performed, then wrote it down from memory. He then attended another performance to correct errors in his original transcription. After that, he sold bootleg copies of it to various sheet music shops around Europe.

    • by TWX (665546)

      As long as it's copyable it'll be copied.

      If the Internet no longer supported file sharing, people would do it by USB flash media. If somehow they managed to make USB flash media DRMed, people would do it via LAN Party. If they somehow managed to make that not work, people would burn things to CD. Even if they somehow managed to completely eliminate the possibility of digitally copying the files, two people would hook up the analog-out of one device to the analog-in on another and hit play and record.

      If y

  • I'm pretty happy that this is going in the right direction. While I don't live in the United States, I'm hoping if these things are shut down there, they may be less aggressive on neighboring countries in enforcing such crude copyright laws..

    • Re:Great news (Score:4, Interesting)

      by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @11:47AM (#36375844) Homepage

      That's where you are wrong. The 3-strikes, laws we keep hearing about would never pass in the US so easily. It is easier for the US government and US companies to influence foreign government than it is for the US government to influence its people.

      In a way, it speaks well of the US people, not not really... we rolled right over when it came to terrorist laws didn't we? But worse than that -- saw a news story about certain parts of town where violent things have occurred. The news people played comments by people demanding more police and cameras and other measures to "keep us safe." So we still have a long way to go (or have slipped way too far down that slippery slope). You will find people of the US not worried about losing freedom, but they are worried about losing convenience!

      • That's where you are wrong. The 3-strikes, laws we keep hearing about would never pass in the US so easily.

        Until some Senator or Representative that's been bought ... er I mean to whose campaign the RIAA or MPAA contributed generously ... slips it into a 1500 page "flags for orphans of members of the armed forces killed in action" bill right next to the hundred other "trivialities" that other members of Congress have stuffed into the bill 15 minutes before the vote.

  • Every time I read a story like this, I get a sinking feeling, but then I realize it doesn't apply to me. Turns out, I don't download stuff other people like. Also, I tend to avoid some of the massively popular torrents for that very reason. "Expendables?" Yeah, never even saw it, let alone downloaded it. My musical taste is kind of old too. While it's true that for me to download, someone else must be sharing it and therefore has "some" popularity, I'm still probably in a 1% group while everyone else

    • Turns out, I don't download stuff other people like

      ...because there are so many people in the world who like Teen Anal Nightmare 2 or Batman XXX: A Porn Parody? The fact that something is unpopular is not a protection from these lawsuits.

      http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/a-new-record-9729-p2p-porn-pushers-sued-at-once.ars [arstechnica.com]

      Luckily, these lawsuits were stopped by the judge as well, because of how completely absurd it is to sued thousands of people across different jurisdictions in the same court room.

    • by Nidi62 (1525137)

      Turns out, I don't download stuff other people like.

      No one liked The Expendables, or even Hurt Locker. That didnt stop the copyright holders from suing people.

      • by PIBM (588930)

        They had to find a way to make some money out of that thing..

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by gazbo (517111)
      Hipster poster is hipster.
    • by PIBM (588930)

      That`s what 90% of people think!

    • I get a sinking feeling, but then I realize it doesn't apply to me. Turns out, I don't download stuff other people like.

      If it weren't for the MAFIAA, I would never have started watching foreign films. Early on I figured the risk of getting popped in the USA for downloading a Korean or Japanese film was pretty much null. So foreign films were pretty much all I watched for over half a decade. Turned me on to some really great cinema too.

    • by TheSpoom (715771)

      *cough*usenet*cough*

  • by bennomatic (691188) on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @11:44AM (#36375776) Homepage
    The real crime was making that movie. It was terrible. Predictable, trite, and itself a stitched-together copy of all the "hottest" moments of dozens of other successful action films.

    The studio should be prosecuted for making such a bad movie. The people sharing it only committed the crime of making people think it was worth sharing. If there were 22,000 people sharing it, that means millions watched it, and thus the equivalent of at least a handful of human lifetimes evaporated in a puff of wasted time. Poof.

    The essential irony is that the title of the movie should be a dead give-away. The whole thing was expendable.
    • by c (8461)

      Speaking of irony, it sounds like you actually watched the entire movie... you didn't give anyone actual money for that "privilege", did you?

      • by sjames (1099)

        Why would that be irony? Perhaps he was one of the millions ripped off by a crap movie who wants his 2 hours and $10 back but will never get it.

        He said SHOULD be a dead give-away, not that it was.

      • Yes, I Netflix'ed it, and watched the DVD. I kept hoping it'd get better, but it just kept getting more cliched and boring.

        I think I was sick at the time, which was my excuse for not getting up and doing something else.

        And yes, I guess it is somewhat ironic. Sad bennomatic is sad.
    • by wvmarle (1070040)
      Until now I had never even heard of that flick...
    • by Ihmhi (1206036)

      Take any one of the leading men in that film. Are you really expecting to walk into film featuring Stallone or Crews or Lundgren and get high art? It's a goddamned action movie. Does a lot of shit blow up? Check. Does the body count go into the double or even triple digits? Check.

      I actually enjoy action movies, because it's trashy, violent entertainment. I usually figure out the end plot of most dramas, so I need either comedy or lots of explosions to distract me.

      • Stallone's had a couple of gems. First Blood was great. Rocky was great. Copland wasn't bad. It seems to me there was another one, too; I was hoping for something a little different.

        And don't forget about Mickey Rourke. Sigh. You're right. I should have just skipped it. The thing is, trashy violent action movies aren't the problem. It's ones that take the cheapest thrills from all the other action movies you've ever seen and redo them with bigger explosions that I don't like. It's possible to m
  • Was this because watching that movie is punishment enough?
  • by kaizendojo (956951) on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @12:14PM (#36376152)
    the lawsuit is in danger of suffering the same fate as the movie - falling into complete obscurity. Talk about self referential.
  • by tttonyyy (726776) on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @12:14PM (#36376158) Homepage Journal

    Pertinent to the story, just spotted this in the news:

    http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/367885/acs-law-solicitor-is-bankrupt [pcpro.co.uk]

    Blackmailing filesharers didn't turn out to be the money-spinner he anticipated it to be...

  • Until this post I'd never even heard of that flick. I think I'll download it when I get home...
    • by Virtucon (127420)

      You're not missing much. The funniest scene and about the only scene in that movie that was any good was Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis and Stallone in a Church. The dialog between Arnold and Stallone was the only bright spot in that movie.

      Frankly, they should just give the movie away.

  • ... is generally a bad idea.

    He's the guy who says what you can get away with. If you're the plaintiff in a lawsuit, you don't want him holding you to strict rules. You want a "we're all just amicable people trying to figure out the answer here" kind of deal.

    Not this.

    This copyright group is toast.

    One wonders what Judge Learned Hand would have said in a situation like this. It would have been colourful.

    --
    BMO

  • Of all the movies you can pirate, can you imagine getting sued for watching that turd? The viewers should be the ones suing the studio -- to get their money back!

  • by lymond01 (314120) on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @02:50PM (#36378526)

    Isn't this how people want it to work? Don't sue the ISP or threaten the University. Go after the individual file sharers. And now that they're doing it, people are trying to stop the process? Ugh.

    Musicians should go back to performing for money, rather than just selling their recordings. Too much hassle. :-)

    • by robot256 (1635039)

      Isn't this how people want it to work? Don't sue the ISP or threaten the University. Go after the individual file sharers. And now that they're doing it, people are trying to stop the process? Ugh.

      What you see here is known as "due process". You cannot sue someone if you have no information on them, no real evidence against a real person. It has already been determined that an IP address does legally point back to an individual without extra evidence. We really do want this suit to fail too, so that copyright holders will realize that fighting consumer "piracy" is pointless and go back to only suing commercial infringers.

      Musicians should go back to performing for money, rather than just selling their recordings. Too much hassle. :-)

      Exactly, and they should accept filesharing for what it is: free publicity.

  • by Have Brain Will Rent (1031664) on Wednesday June 08, 2011 @05:34PM (#36380484)
    I would wager that at this point copyright infringement lawsuits are being maintained as simple misdirection. Something to keep the opposition focussing its energy on the wrong target, or at least diverting significant portions of that energy to the wrong target. Meanwhile legislation is arriving which just makes the copyright owning companies able to do what they want in a much easier way. Magicians do it all the time.

Real programs don't eat cache.

Working...