I also wonder how many "solid cases" there really are in these mass lawsuits? How many instances of an incomplete download, or a person who stopped the download after discovering it wasn't the file they wanted? Of course DGW would argue that even the smallest infringement would be a violation (and they would be right), but do they really believe that they would get a large enough payoff by suing a person who downloaded a small fraction of the infringed file? Of course they dont. The game here is to get the "settlement" not to sue. And "settlement" is an odd term considering hardly anybody was actually a named defendant in a suit. IMO it should be illegal to ask for money until the defendant has actually been named.
The whole "Torrent Jurisdiction" argument makes no sense. First off an IP owner could very likely NOT be the infringer, second..whats the argument for filing ANYWHERE? Simply because the law firm suing happened to be in the jurisdiction filed in? What jurisdiction would be the popper one to file in? This sounds like an "all too easy" argument. Lets drag people from across the country to this jurisdiction based on a flimsy "torrent seed" argument? Based in an IP address and no other due diligence? Bah. I don't buy it and the judges aren't buying it either.
Come on. Everybody now sees what the game here was. Cast a wide net. Scare people with the threat of a lawsuit and scoop up the innocent along with the guilty because everybody knows that it would cost more to prove your innocence than to cough up the $1500-$2500. It's using the legal system as a business and a perversion of the justice system.
Now that the "model" is falling apart its in Dumblop Grubbers and Shysters best interest to keep insisting that they are going to re-file to maximize the return on the threats that they have already mailed. I wouldn't be surprised if they are not posting on forums like this to scare people who are searching for data on what to do regarding their DGW letters.
They probably will have to take a case or two to court just to show that they intended to. If they don't I can see the accusations of racketeering holding water.
I also wonder how many "solid cases" there really are in these mass lawsuits? How many instances of an incomplete download, or a person who stopped the download after discovering it wasn't the file they wanted? Of course DGW would argue that even the smallest infringement would be a violation (and they would be right), but do they really believe that they would get a large enough payoff by suing a person who downloaded a small fraction of the infringed file? Of course they dont. The game here is to get the "settlement" not to sue. And "settlement" is an odd term considering hardly anybody was actually a named defendant in a suit. IMO it should be illegal to ask for money until the defendant has actually been named.