[newsimage]http://static.rankone.nl/images_posts/2010/09/uQDYuC.jpg[/newsimage]A subpoena that was served to regional internet service provider Midcontinent to obtain the personal information of defendants associated the file-sharing case brought by producers of The Hurt Locker has been quashed this week by a South Dakota Judge. Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/hurt-locker-file-sharing-subpoena-quashed-34699/](http://www.myce.com/news/hurt-locker-file-sharing-subpoena-quashed-34699/) Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.
US Copyright Group was not in compliance with the federal rule regarding how subpoenas must be handled.
Well go figure they themselves are to blame for the problems and now they give the Judge a reason to disbelieve their own claims now.
I checked Yes this case can be quoted and used in other Movie cases to Quash or stop them from releasing your name, as long as the Person is out side of the Washingtopn DC court
Just have your attorney site this case in this thread the number is
Case 4:10-MC-00075 District 8 or Circuit 8
Or fill out your own motion to quash and mail it in, the forms are here:
Add in the above case by typing out your own letter
Searching in Google NEWS there are about 50,000 are getting letters this year. With the cost to hire a lawyer its cheaper just to pay when the ask for many later ($1,500 to #2,900)
An other option is to down load the forms to file your own motion to Quash or dismiss because you live out side of the DC court district do a search in google on
lawyer offers self help to sued bittorrent users
the first link to come up is a torrent freak one. The link to the docs is at the end in a link in the text of the doc
Does this help anyone?
In the Hurt Locker Case the Judge ordered USCG to show cause the then said in there reply while quote a source that users sometimes share IP addresses
In case 1:10-cv-00453-RMC Document 109 Filed 09/24/10 Page 17 of 22
the Plaintiff quoted
â€œis more difficult and less accurate because there is no official source for the information, users sometimes share IP addressesâ€
To me it means the Subpoenas could all be just random shared IP addresses now
Seems like a technicality which won’t last long.
Most ISP’s clearly state in their terms & conditions that the subscriber is fully responsible for all traffic traversing the connection, no matter whom they share it with.
It seems more like the prosecutors didn’t follow due course, and the case has been thrown out due to technicality, not due to inability to define the defendant.
[QUOTE=debro;2546570]Most ISP’s clearly state in their terms & conditions that the subscriber is fully responsible for all traffic traversing the connection, no matter whom they share it with.[/QUOTE]
What the ISP says doesn’t matter in the court system. That is a private agreement meant to protect the ISP from liability of the consumer’s actions which could be a wide variety of things. IMO, this is like letting a person with a legal driver’s license barrow your car and he gets a DUI. The owner of the car isn’t charged. The driver is charged. IMO, this has been the whole problem with these cases brought by the RIAA etc. How can they prove a specific person was downloading illegal content? The cases I have seen where the RIAA has won involves a defendant that admits the download/uploading occurred by a specific person. But then most people targeted isn’t for the download of content as much as it is for uploading material for others to obtain.
[/QUOTE] IMO, this is like letting a person with a legal driver’s license barrow your car and he gets a DUI. The owner of the car isn’t charged. .[/QUOTE]
The owner of the car may not get charged with DUI, but in most states the owner is responsible for damages caused by his car, unless the car is stolen regardless of the driver.
Not really a good comparison. If you use this model, the ISP should pay damages, but the subscriber gets charged with the crime.
but in most states the owner is responsible for damages caused by his car, unless the car is stolen regardless of the driver.
which is really messed up . . .
Funny, I was thinking the other day, if all these provisions protect the RIAA, what about the protection of the consumer? According to laws, if I own a record/ LP say RUSH2112, and want to convert it to mp3 or flac files, according to the RIAA, I am breaking the law. According to Digital Rights laws, I can legally have a backup of anything I buy. My question is this, if technically I don’t own the materials on my LP, then should not the RIAA be held accountable and therefore be responsible for making sure that I have an up to date copy of materials I have purchased in the past? How could the RIAA prove that I never owned that song, if I did in fact purchase said album at an old Record Bar, (using this as an example because I don’t think they exist anymore), so now my record is scratched on my fav song, should not the RIAA have to recompensate my song because it is now flawed? If you charge for a service, is there not a guarantee for an extended period of time? How long? I have albums 50 years old, something to think about. I’m coming for you, RIAA. “Got a lawsuit in my pocket goin ginga ginga ling” …
It’s nice to see at least some minor wins on the defendants’ side for these crazy US Copyright Group mass lawsuits.