Although I hate IP abuse (and wish Smith the best of luck), I see a number of issues with his complaint-- ranging from problems with standing to assert some of his claims to issues involving following the federal rules of civil procedure.
Smith isn't doing anyone any favors by filing his suit pro se, either. Every victory gives EMI favorable precedence it can use in the future.
I personally agree that other ISPs should take a similar approach.
More ISPs do not take a similar approach, however, because fighting the subpoenas can have substantial monetary costs, and it usually costs quite a bit more to fight the subpoena than it does to simply comply with the subpoena or discovery request. This analysis becomes even easier for the ISP when considering that many (but not all) states have laws that limit liability as a result of complying with third-party discovery requests or subpoenas.
This lady never even made it to the other side-- there could have been a sidewalk there for all intents and purposes. Nonetheless, I hardly see how Google could be liable unless it was the Google van that hit her (and even then, I believe her own negligence would be a bar to recovery).
I wonder if Verizon is exposing itself to liability by simply handing out its subscribers' information without a court order. It seems like it may constitute a breach of contract or a tort for common law invasion of privacy. I doubt their boilerplate contract would be sufficient to simply circumvent the issue, either.
I would definitely love to represent someone to fight this type of battle. Copyright was enacted "[t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts." I fail to see how shooting 5000 demand letters in the mail, without sufficient process, helps promote the sciences and the arts.
A for effort, F for execution
Although I hate IP abuse (and wish Smith the best of luck), I see a number of issues with his complaint-- ranging from problems with standing to assert some of his claims to issues involving following the federal rules of civil procedure.
Smith isn't doing anyone any favors by filing his suit pro se, either. Every victory gives EMI favorable precedence it can use in the future.
Why?
I personally agree that other ISPs should take a similar approach.
More ISPs do not take a similar approach, however, because fighting the subpoenas can have substantial monetary costs, and it usually costs quite a bit more to fight the subpoena than it does to simply comply with the subpoena or discovery request. This analysis becomes even easier for the ISP when considering that many (but not all) states have laws that limit liability as a result of complying with third-party discovery requests or subpoenas.
Yasha Heidari
Attorney-at-Law
www.heidariplank.com
Worthless
This lady never even made it to the other side-- there could have been a sidewalk there for all intents and purposes. Nonetheless, I hardly see how Google could be liable unless it was the Google van that hit her (and even then, I believe her own negligence would be a bar to recovery).
Lawsuits like this give lawyers a bad name.
Yasha Heidari
Attorney-at-Law
Amazing
I wonder if Verizon is exposing itself to liability by simply handing out its subscribers' information without a court order. It seems like it may constitute a breach of contract or a tort for common law invasion of privacy. I doubt their boilerplate contract would be sufficient to simply circumvent the issue, either.
I would definitely love to represent someone to fight this type of battle. Copyright was enacted "[t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts." I fail to see how shooting 5000 demand letters in the mail, without sufficient process, helps promote the sciences and the arts.
Yasha Heidari
Attorney-at-Law
www.heidariplank.com