Judge In US Copyright Group Case Seems Skeptical Of Lumping All Those Lawsuits Into One

from the convince-me dept

Following the filing from the EFF, Public Citizen and the ACLU questioning US Copyright Group's (really law firm Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver) decision to lump together thousands upon thousands of copyright infringement lawsuits into a single lawsuit, it sounds like the judge in the case is quite skeptical of the strategy. She's demanding that US Copyright Group explain in writing why she shouldn't throw out all but one of the John Doe defendants for "misjoinder."
A brief entry in the official court docket lays out the order. "MINUTE ORDER requiring Plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than June 21, 2010 why Doe Defendants 2 through 2000 should not be dismissed for misjoinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20," wrote the judge in The Steam Experiment case. The same order was repeated in a separate case targeting 4,577 users alleged to have shared the film Far Cry.
Considering that USCG has been making the argument that ISPs who don't hand over the names of the accused are guilty of inducing infringement, I can't wait to see the legal response. In the meantime, though, it's good that the judge appears to be aware that this strategy is highly questionable.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 7:54am

    actually, she doesnt appear skeptical, she is just asking for their legal reasoning to put them together. if you want to run 5000 does at the same time, there needs to be some connection.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 8:09am

    Re:

    Oooh! They're all named 'John Doe'
    Obviously it's some sort of crime family...
    ; P

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 8:14am

    Re: Re:

    you cant say that in a doe-mocracy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    cc (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 8:14am

    Re:

    Doh.. If she wasn't being skeptical, she wouldn't have questioned the reasoning in the first place -- she'd just taken it for granted.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 8:15am

    Re:

    "there needs to be some connection"

    Considering they downloaded an Uwe Boll movie, they all have excruciating bad taste in movies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    AJ, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 8:17am

    Re:

    After reading the entire story and links, she appears quite skeptical to me!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    LumpyDog (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 8:24am

    Re: Re:

    Yeah. Almost worth setting aside the constitution so we can throw them in the clink for wanting to see that awful waste of film.

    But not really.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 8:29am

    new names for democrcy

    larry-darrlyanddarrylocracy
    MO-ocracy
    curlyocracy

    stoogocracy
    pinkynbrainocracy

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 8:41am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "But not really."

    But it's pretty darn close.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 8:49am

    I guess Uwe Boll figures if he isn't going to make any money at the box office with his crappy films then he'll make it up in lawsuits. I can't believe even 4,577 people downloaded Far Cry.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 8:50am

    Re: Re:

    Ding!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Sean T Henry (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 8:52am

    I thought that Far Cry was a video game not a movie.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    LumpyDog (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 9:04am

    Re:

    It was a good video game that was made into a terrible film.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    A Dan (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 9:06am

    Re:

    This same guy keeps making awful video game movies.

    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0093051/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 10:32am

    Re:

    Proof that piracy does not represent monetary value!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 11:32am

    The One

    That would suck to be the one guy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 11:33am

    Re: Re:

    Wow! Jessica Simpson as Metroid...this film has no chance...no chance whatsoever.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Jun 10th, 2010 @ 12:41pm

    For added reading

    You should see the Ars Technica report about the accused P2P users themselves:

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/songs-of-innocence.ars

    Here's where the pirates be human and falsely claimed by Davy Jones.

    YAARGH!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Pixelation, Jun 10th, 2010 @ 5:53pm

    The real reason

    These lawyers, aside from being money "Grubb"ing whores, are probably interested in jobs with the Obama administration.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    slander (profile), Jun 13th, 2010 @ 12:19am

    Re: Re:

    This same guy keeps making awful movies.
    FTFY

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Mikeg35435, Jun 14th, 2010 @ 9:58pm

    Hurt Locker Hypocracy

    Strange that the Hurt Locker people are being sued by the person on whom the movie was based on. Apparently he wasn't paid anything for his story. So he sued them in a Delaware court and now the defendants are telling the court that none of them live in Delaware and the suit should be moved to California where they live.

    It seems though that they have no problem suing people in DC where practically none of their down loaders live.

    Justice......what a joke. USA has the best justice money can buy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Advertisement
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Chat
Techdirt Reading List
Advertisement
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Support Techdirt - Get Great Stuff!

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.