News :: ISPs Protested Mass File-Sharing Lawsuits

News :: ISPs Protested Mass File-Sharing Lawsuits
A number of ISPs, including AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner and Cox, are currently appealing a district court decision which ordered the companies to reveal the identities of more than a thousand of their subscribers alleged of pirating video content on BitTorrent. The broadband providers argue that their customers may not be those who downloaded the copyrighted content.

Back in 2012, a district court judge, ex RIAA lobbyist, granted the porn company AF Holdings the right to get personal information of over 1000 subscribers alleged of downloading their copyrighted works through BitTorrent. This was a big victory for both the porn studio and its law firm Prenda, because other judges rejected to join such an impressive number of defendants in a single case. But this judge even accused the broadband providers of failing to do enough to stop Internet piracy. Now the ISPs hope to reverse the recent ruling and stop law firms from “commercial invoicing”.

The companies claimed that many judges have previously rejected such cases because the copyright trolls were trying to sue many people at minimal cost, while many of the targeted subscribers aren’t people who actually downloaded the infringing content. Everyone knows that unsecured and shared connections in subscribers’ homes make them the false identities of the real infringers.
Although the porn studio is well aware of this, it is simply not interested in finding the true pirates, but rather in settlements of a few thousands dollars with each defendant. The matter is that the evidence in these cases is never properly tested, and many of the alleged subscribers may be innocent. But those defendants often see settling as the best option in such embarrassing situation, because hiring a lawyer costs the same as the settlement fee.

The broadband providers also mention the controversial nature of the law company Prenda, which was recently punished in court for its “mob-like” tactics. For example, its principals relied on fictitious persons as “clients” and submitted fake documents of their cases. So, the dubious status of the law firm alone may be the reason to overturn the previous ruling.

Subscribers appreciate that their ISPs are trying to protect them and are taking a stand in this case. Obviously, it’s in their own interests too, but it also helps the hundreds of people now and perhaps thousands more in the future. It is unlikely that copyright troll cases are going away at all, but the victory in this case will at least allow the service providers minimize the damage they cause.