Is Being In the Same BitTorrent "Swarm" Equal To "Interacting"? 166
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In the new wave of bittorrent downloading cases, the plaintiffs' lawyers like to lump a number of 'John Does' together in the same case in order to avoid filing fees ($350 a pop). Their excuse for 'joinder' is the allegation that the defendants 'interacted' with each other by reason of the fact that their torrents may have emanated from the same 'swarm.' In Malibu Media v. Does 1-5, when John Doe #4 indicated his intention to move for severance, the Court asked the lawyers to address the 'swarm' issue in their papers. So when John Doe #4 filed his or her motion to quash, sever, and dismiss, he filed a detailed memorandum of law (PDF) analyzing the 'swarm' theory in detail. What do you think?"
Re:Sounds a little hokey (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sounds a little hokey (Score:5, Funny)
Or to use a mixed car-superhero analogy, if you're parked in a parking lot when the Incredible Hulk goes on a car-smashing spree, can you be held liable for the other cars being smashed?
Re:Sounds a little hokey (Score:5, Funny)
Depends on if you you're speaking realistically, or riaalistically.
Re:Sounds a little hokey (Score:5, Funny)
I put forward something a little closer to the topic: Is sitting on a toilet connected to the same sewage "system" equal to "giving a sh!t"?
It's all tubes, after all!
Re:Sounds a little hokey (Score:5, Funny)
It's perfect.
Perfectly broken.
In every way possible.
Re:Sounds a little hokey (Score:5, Funny)
Does that work? Would it be possible to sue a blouse off?
Just asking theoretically, you understand.
Why would you ask slashdot? (Score:5, Funny)
Gee, as soon as I finish getting my legal advice from Slashdot, maybe I'll head over to LawBlog to see if they can help me debug some of my Python code.... :)
Re:Sounds a little hokey (Score:5, Funny)
>>>incorrect, there are ways to not upload data. I do it all the time
Please share.
Wait wrong term.
Please tell us how you do it.