Judge: Movie Studios Can Subpoena Internet Users' Names, Data In File-Sharing Cases

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday allowed the holder of a movie copyright to subpoena the names of people accused of illegally downloading and distributing a film over the Internet.

Courts have held that Internet subscribers do not have an expectation of privacy once they convey subscriber information to their Internet service providers, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled.

Collyer denied motions by some computer users to quash subpoenas for subscriber information.

The decision came in the case of a German limited partnership which is suing some Internet users for copyright infringement of the movie "Far Cry," a video game adaptation.

Achte/Neunte Boll Kino Beteiligungs Gmbh & Co KG, a creator and distributor of motion pictures, holds an exclusive license to the copyright of "Far Cry" in which two reporters investigate the deaths of mercenaries on an island off the coast of the Pacific Northwest.

The partnership identified the Internet protocol addresses of computers associated with the alleged infringement. It then subpoenaed the Internet service providers seeking names of individuals associated with those addresses. Notified by their provider, some of the customers challenged the subpoenas.

Comments

[SaneThoughts]

09:07 PM on 09/13/2010

Mussolini hated the term fascism and preferred the term corporatism. That's what he told his good friend Adolf Hitler. Why again did we fight world war II? Fascism has taken over America. America was great while it lasted. Better not say that to our corporate overlords.

[emmanuel goldstein]

04:36 PM on 09/13/2010

If a person is too poor to be spending money on movies and CDs at 10 & 20 bucks a pop, and would just have to do without, does anyone really think it's fair to arrest these people? For many it takes every penny they can scrape together to feed, cloth, and care for themselves and their family.

[RoveRoveRoveYourBoat]

09:51 PM on 09/12/2010

......................................speaking of privacy,
anyone know the judge's home phone number.

[Brane]

01:12 PM on 09/12/2010

Uwe Boll wants someone to actually pay for seeing his movies? Then he should make better ones.

[Dave Bee]

08:23 AM on 09/12/2010

what a total baby. I hope the next appeals court throws this dumb case out. A studio like that crying over a movie that completely awful. Like that movie was going to be a blockbuster if not for the illegal downloading. How sadly deluded. The damages can't literally be worth more than the cost of half a dozen ticket sales.

[Jack Barron]

04:13 AM on 09/12/2010

If your dumb enough to actually download an Uwe Boll movie you deserve to be arrested.

[manitoumackinac]

12:21 AM on 09/12/2010

I wonder if there is some way to produce quality content without copyright? I like the model where a talented group of people take an upfront commission to produce a song/movie/book for the public domain. They get paid, people get some music to listen to, and no one gets sued. Imagine someone like Stephen King saying he would write another book provided that he gets a ton of cash up front. I think people would pitch-in for something like that. I don't know how much they would make in the end though.

[ElvisGump]

04:22 PM on 09/12/2010

Does Stephen King need more money?

I would imagine he shovels it into a furnace to in the creepy basement warm on those cold Maine nights... while he stares in the heart of the small boy he keeps in the jar on his desk and touch-types out the latest money-maker. Crikey the paperback of "Under The Dome" is over ten bucks even at Wallymart!

[verypragmatic]

03:18 AM on 09/13/2010

I wonder if you'll do your job with 1/8 of the tools and time you now have to do it? And how good it will be.

[Morgantheaxe]

10:51 PM on 09/11/2010

Yeh so what? They are thieves and their peer to peer networks hog up bandwidth. Im glad the victims of this theft can get the info on the thieves. Thats a good thing.

[NickCatal]

01:34 AM on 09/12/2010

These people aren't doing it to punish those who pirate their moves or try to prevent the action (like the MPAA and RIAA has tried to do) - these smaller groups are scraping every IP address associated with a peer-to-peer download and demanding hundreds (or thousands) of dollars in "settlements" in order to make cash

The big studios won't go near this approach at the moment (the RIAA/MPAA have said on multiple occasions that their lawsuits and subpoenas have never come close to covering their costs) but these smaller financiers are buying up rights and trying to extort cash out of everyone they can get at to turn a quick buck

And, of course, you don't have the right to representation in civil cases and they can do all of this in far away jurisdictions so it really just is a shakedown

[idcsys]

01:02 PM on 09/12/2010

"The big studios won't go near this approach"

Better fact check. This email message was received by a friend:

"Dear Sir/Madam:

I am contacting you on behalf of NBC Universal, Inc. and its affiliated companies ("NBC Universal") regarding certain activity on your Internet account. NBC Universal owns intellectual property rights, including exclusive rights protected under copyright law, in many motion pictures, television programs and other audiovisual works ("NBC Universal Properties"). Based on our data, we believe that your Internet account was recently used to reproduce and/or distribute unauthorized copies of one or more NBC Universal Properties in violation of NBC Universal's rights. We have set forth below the details concerning this infringement, including the title(s) in question, the IP address of the account at the time of the infringement, and the date and time of the infringement.

Your Internet service provider (ISP) has agreed to forward this notice to you in order to provide you an opportunity to remedy this situation. Your ISP has not provided your personal information to us, but NBC Universal reserves the right to obtain that information through legal process in appropriate circumstances.

Unauthorized copying or distribution of copyrighted works may give rise to significant liability for copyright infringement, including statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringed work for willful infringement. Such action may also constitute a violation of your Internet provider's Terms of Use and may result in suspension or termination of your Internet service account.

[Dave Bee]

08:30 AM on 09/12/2010

regardless, US internet providers need to get off their cheap, lazy behinds and expand the networks here in america OR at the very least, stop fighting other people or townships or smaller companies from trying to. So many towns across the u.s. have tried to set up their own networks with fiberoptics and run it like a utility and every time the big companies come in and fight it with their millions. All the while their networks get older and INSTEAD of updating, they just want to further inhibit service with higher prices and more convoluted packages and stronger control over access. Like instead of buying a new car, they continue to fix the old car with duct tape and gum, and just charge you even more for upkeep, while giving you shorter rides because the thing is on its last leg. The rest of the modern world has access up to 60 times faster than america. Its like we are literally trapped in time by those greedy, conniving, sneaky, awful, evil, internet providers.

[salty0311]

08:10 PM on 09/11/2010

If they want it, they gotta come get it.. bum Im gonna copy it.. hahahahahaha you cant stop it.

[ibsteve2u]

06:10 PM on 09/11/2010

"Courts have held that Internet subscribers do not have an expectation of privacy once they convey subscriber information to their Internet service providers, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled."

I.e., now the g'ment can read your snail mail...unless you think you can get mail without giving the g'ment your "subscriber information".

Yeah, she was appointed in - wait for it - 2003.

[Noble]

05:36 PM on 09/11/2010

Big Brother and the Holding Company(ies) ... together again.

[blogisti]

05:17 PM on 09/11/2010

The fewer people owning the wealth means those few need tougher laws to protect themselves. The little people, earning less and less money, have a tendency to "take" what is not theirs at times. They learned this from the Masters of Theft on Wall Street. Sadly, the little people will never be as good as the Masters.

[GoDogGo]

05:11 PM on 09/11/2010

The days of anonymity on the internet are drawing to an inevitable close. If you haven't written Congress about it, you're letting it happen. 

[philko]

07:07 PM on 09/11/2010

And if you HAVE written Congress anonymously, they now know who you are...

[GoDogGo]

09:06 PM on 09/11/2010

Why would you write your Congressperson anonymously? They don't even bother if you don't share your name and location. Seriously, it goes straight to the trash.

[ResearchtheFacts]

04:03 PM on 09/11/2010

Did anyone see this today?


AT&T insists, “to facilitate paid prioritization as a means for encouraging the further growth and development of the internet.”
Paid priority access “was fully contemplated” and even “expressly contemplated” by the IETF decades ago, the telco has told the Federal Communications Commission, and is “fully consistent” with that body’s standards-making discussions.



Baloney, insists the IETF’s current chairman. “AT&T’s characterization is misleading,” Russ Housley told National Journal several days later. “IETF prioritization technology is geared toward letting network users indicate how they want network providers to handle their traffic, and there is no implication in the IETF about payment based on any prioritization.”

Read More 

[politicky]

10:25 PM on 09/11/2010

I have now, thank you

[ResearchtheFacts]

03:44 PM on 09/11/2010

"Names of people accused of illegally downloading and distributing a film over the Internet?"

What are they referring to those "bit torrent" sites? I don't think you could be any dumber, if you were illegally downloading and distributing a film over the internet that you yourself did not create or have ownership rights to.

I guess for now on, we are going to have to rubber stamp onto everything " have an expectation of privacy".

To make it real clear where we stand on certain issues.