Hurt Locker Subpoenas Arrive With New Language... And Higher Demands

from the the-$400-oscar-bounty dept

Well, it took a while, but US Copyright Group (really DC law firm Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver) have finally gotten around to getting subpoenas out to ISPs in the Hurt Locker lawsuit. While that lawsuit was filed months ago, the subpoenas just went out, in part, because of the fight in another of USCG's lawsuits over certain aspects of the threat letters. That ended with a requirement for USCG to work with groups like the EFF to come up with more informative threat letters. The results don't look all that more reasonable, but it does note that those accused have the right to try to fight the subpoena, and removes the misleading threat of a $150,000 penalty hanging over their heads. Of course, being just slightly more honest has its cost. The pre-settlement fee demanded has been increased from $2,500 to $2,900 this time around.

Separately, in Greg Sandoval's article, he talks to Cindy Cohn from the EFF who notes that they're hearing from a lot more people on the receiving end of USCG lawsuits who have no idea what it's all about and aren't BitTorrent users at all. That happened with the RIAA lawsuits as well, but apparently at a much lower rate. This certainly calls into serious question the techniques that USCG is using to identify file sharers and to make sure they're not suing innocent people. Of course, when you look at the economics of it all, to USCG it really doesn't matter. When it makes mistakes, the actual likelihood of getting in trouble for it times the likely cost of such a mistake is so low as to make the incentive such that there's little reason to care about false positives. Yet, on the flip side, the cost of defending yourself against a bogus threat from USCG is certainly going to be more than $2,900 in almost every case. As Cohn notes:
"When it comes to copyright," Cohn said "the law is set up so that truth, whether someone actually violated the law or not, takes a back seat to financial considerations."
And, really, that's what's so nefarious about this whole process. The incentives are totally screwed up. USCG has no incentive to weed out the false positives, and the innocent folks threatened have powerful economic incentives to just pay up. It's still not "extortion," in that USCG can claim to have a legitimate legal basis for the demands, but it certainly comes damn close in practice.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Modplan (profile), 5 Sep 2010 @ 10:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Once again:

    You claim others do not support their position, then you regularly fail to do so yourself, whilst acting above the rest of us at the same time. This has been the only occasion I've seen from you where you have actually substantiated what you say with something that supports your position.

    When you have supported your position, you have often done so with odd interpretations of what you cite that do not actually support what you say they do.

    Honestly joe, I'm not gonna bother spelling it out for you any further. If you don't get it now, you never will.

    P.S.
    Judge Collyer's order that USCG work with the EFF in the "Far Cry" case has nothing to do with the "Hurt Locker" case, which is being presided over by Judge Urbina.

    I just checked the docket, and the EFF hasn't filed a thing in the "Hurt Locker" case. Nor has the judge issued any orders about required notice to the defendants with respect to the subpoenas.


    EFF has made specific reference to the Hurt Locker case elsewhere:

    http://www.eff.org/uscg

    It appears that EFF have only focused on the Far Cry case either due to insufficient resources or hoping to use it as a slap down on USCG to get them to produce better informational letters in other cases and the future regardless. In line with Mikes interpretation, it would appear that USCG could (and will) use the new letter that has been noted as not being much better than before to point at to say it is meeting requirements if it's brought up in other cases.

    In other words, they're hoping they can continue bullying people into settlements whilst claiming being fully informative, even as pre-settlement cost has been raised.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

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