"Given the administrative burden of simply obtaining sufficient identifying information to properly name and serve alleged infringers, it is highly unlikely that the plaintiffs could protect their copyrights in a cost-effective manner. Indeed, Time Warner urges the Court to sever the defendants for this very reason. Time Warner asserts that, if joinder were disallowed, its burden of complying with subpoenas would be diminished because the plaintiffs would not be able to proceed against all of the putative defendants individually At this procedural juncture, the plaintiffs have met the requirements of permissive joinder under Rule 20(a)(2). The putative defendants are not prejudiced but likely benefited by joinder, and severance would debilitate the plaintiffs' efforts to protect their copyrighted materials and seek redress from the putative defendants who have allegedly engaged in infringing activity."

Nevertheless, file-sharers are engaged in expressive activity, on some level, when they share files on BitTorrent, and their First Amendment rights must be considered before the Court allows the plaintiffs to override the putative defendants' anonymity by compelling the production of these defendants' identifying information.

"Among other things, the newest motion demonstrates that there is no justification for dragging into an Illinois federal court, on a wholesale basis, a host of unnamed defendants over whom personal jurisdiction clearly does not exist and--more importantly--as to whom CP’s counsel could readily have ascertained that fact," the judge said, apparently referring to the fact the IP lookup services would have shown the lawyers that most defendants were unlikely to be Illinois residents.

In addition, the judge saw the joinder of 300 defendants as little more than a ploy for saving cash. "No predicate has been shown for thus combining 300 separate actions on the cheap," he added. "If CP had sued the 300 claimed infringers separately for their discrete infringements, the filing fees alone would have aggregated $105,000 rather than $350."

I cannot imagine a system better designed to create disincentives to test the issues in court.... Why take cases to court and test the assertions when one can just write more letters and collect payments from a proportion of the recipients?

"If true, it is extraordinary," said the ruling. "A party who keeps key documents which are cited in the particulars of claim in storage is not a party anxious to progress their claim in court."

This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Class because the putative named class representative Defendants are residents of Illinois. This Court has in personam jurisdiction over absent class members because due process is satisfied by providing them with best practicable notice, an opportunity to opt-out, and adequate representation. In addition, the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over individual Defendants because their infringing activity should have reasonably been anticipated to violate the Copyright Act in this jurisdiction. Therefore, due process is satisfied because any person engaged in such activity could reasonably anticipate being haled into this jurisdiction where he or she violated the Copyright Act.

"Originally we got a letter from our ISP stating they have a subpoena for our name and address. We literally had 2 business days to research and try to find legal counsel on this matter. I called a local ISP lawyer here in [state redacted]. His advice was to contact a lawyer over where this lawsuit originated (Washington, DC). Well, we do not have the monetary means or time to try and fight this..."

"I received a subpoena notice from [ISP redacted] on May 4, with a deadline of May 7 for response. It included NO INFORMATION as to what the subpoena was about so I immediately tried to contact the sender of the notice. After countless e-mails & phone calls, I finally reached an informed, live person by calling [ISP's] corporate line (which I found online and was NOT included in the notice).

"I was finally provided a copy of the subpoena itself and I recognized the date that I was accused of downloading Far Cry (a movie I never heard of) as a period when I was having Internet connection and wireless router issues. I suspect my neighbors may have been using my connection without my permission and my ISP should have record of my support calls...

"Unfortunately, I tried to hire an attorney that could help me with this and I was repeatedly told there was little I could do without further information from [ISP], and certainly nothing I could do in the very short period before the subpoena deadline. I did all this in the span of only a few days and STILL DIDN'T GET ANYWHERE. I assume my identity has been sent to the plaintiff and I can only imagine what others are going through trying to figure out what is going on here."

CEG provides intellectual property management services to a consortium of studios in the entertainment industry. Our clients have entrusted us with their valuable property and authorized us to bring legal action against those individuals who illegally download and/or distribute their copyrighted materials over the Internet.

CEG's proprietary technology detects infringements which occur over the Internet and gathers sufficient evidence to support a claim of copyright infringement against the infringing party. Once infringement is detected, we follow strict multi-step validation procedures to ensure that all information is accurate before we forward the DMCA notice to you. The infringing party is then afforded with an opportunity to settle the matter for substantially less than what will be offered if a lawsuit is filed or compared to the judgment amount a court may enter against the infringer.

We understand and respect the important role that you play in securing the privacy of your subscriber base. However, we, too, are deeply committed to our clients and will vigorously enforce their intellectual property rights against infringement. We sincerely hope that you will join us in our effort to fight Internet piracy.