![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||
Welcome to the GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. |
![]() ![]() |
|
Discuss what's fucking going on, and which programs are best and worst. One-time "program" announcements from "established" webmasters are allowed. |
|
Thread Tools |
![]() |
#1 |
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: So*Cal
Posts: 4,789
|
Comcast and Time Warner Cable intervene in massive file-sharing lawsuits
The big ISPs, especially Comcast and Time Warner Cable, have intervened for months in massive file-sharing lawsuits, telling judges that they simply can't drop all of their activity for law enforcement in order to spend weeks doing IP address lookups on behalf of pornographers. And, when the ISPs get the chance to make their arguments before judges, they routinely go beyond complaints about the workload and challenge the very basis of the mass lawsuits.
One recent case serves as a good example. Last November, the large New York law firm of Foley & Lardner jumped into the P2P game, filing John Doe lawsuits on behalf of films like Anal Fanatic. A judge granted expedited discovery and subpoenas went out to ISPs?but the ISPs objected. Comcast tried privately to negotiate a schedule, suggesting that the company could do 25 IP address lookups a month and for $95 apiece (a bargain given the $120 list price). The Foley & Lardner attorneys didn't agree. So Comcast, upset about the pressure it was under, sent one of its lawyers to intervene in the Anal Fanatic case. Two judges overseeing two similar cases granted Comcast's lawyer a joint hearing. According to Houston attorney Rob Cashman, who was representing one of the defendants, the hearing went quite badly for the plaintiffs: I have heard that one judge (Judge Thomas P. Griesa) got upset with the plaintiff attorney based on the jurisdiction, joinder, etc. issues with the case, dismissed it, and walked off the bench. The other Digiprotect case with Judge Paul A. Crotty was not dismissed, but the judge was upset about what he heard. I believe Judge Crotty gave the plaintiff attorney a number of days to respond to the issues this attorney brought before the court. Despite the oral dismissal, Foley & Lardner attorney Britton Payne continued to seek settlements from defendants in the days that followed, including one from Cashman's client. Cashman didn't like this, even though such oral dismissals are not binding and judges may later change their minds. "I do not believe this changes anything or permits the plaintiff attorney to solicit a settlement offer while the case is in limbo since as it stands, the case is dismissed," he told me a few days ago. Britton Payne, a recent Fordham law school grad who also illustrates books and sings in a cappella groups, did not respond to questions about the propriety of this approach to settlements. When we called Judge Griesa's chambers on Thursday, we were told that the case had in fact been orally dismissed back in January at the hearing with Comcast's attorney?but that the judge had just rescinded his own order at another court hearing on Wednesday. Anal Fanatic is back in play, and settlements can continue. But the ISPs don't intend to let this drop. Time Warner Cable has just asked Judge Griesa to admit one of its own attorneys to the case, and the judge this week agreed. It's safe to say that Time Warner, which was called "a good ISP for copyright infringers" by another P2P attorney last year, won't be on the side of the pornographers. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-subpoenas.ars LOL, I love that Comcast tried to negotiate a schedule and rate.
__________________
ICQ#: 142295729 |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
( ͡ʘ╭͜ʖ╮͡ʘ)
Industry Role:
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 20,000
|
I like how one of their lawyer's last name is Cashman. Irony?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: So*Cal
Posts: 4,789
|
The Foley & Lardner attorney, Britton Payne looks like he is still in High School.
__________________
ICQ#: 142295729 |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Choice is an Illusion
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Land of Obama
Posts: 42,635
|
![]() Cha-CHING!
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
It's 42
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Global
Posts: 18,083
|
ConCrap :P
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Confirmed User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,570
|
oral dismissal
__________________
Adult Traffic for Sale |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Confirmed User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,082
|
why it cost money to go thru records and present them in a useable format.
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Northern Cali, USA
Posts: 3,439
|
__________________
WANTED: Buying Blog Posts and Links |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: So*Cal
Posts: 4,789
|
Now they get to pay a lawyer to get involved.
__________________
ICQ#: 142295729 |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Pounding Googlebot
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 34,451
|
$95 to do an IP lookup? I'm surprised Comcast isn't hiring tons of staff to jump over this, easy money for the telecom.
WG
__________________
I play with Google. |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
Confirmed User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,082
|
Quote:
a good lawyer would have to "confirm" that the information given is only what is being ordered by the court. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
working on my tan
Industry Role:
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Florida/Kentucky
Posts: 39,152
|
Hey gideon, I haven't said "fuck you" in quite a while.
. |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Let's do some business!
Industry Role:
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 31,289
|
I've never heard of being able to charge the government or a plaintiff for information required for discovery or by subpoena. Is that common practice?
__________________
Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More - Paxum and BTC Accepted Wanted: CCBill pay sites for sale |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Too old to care
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws.
Posts: 52,943
|
If the IP addresses are logged in a computer, with the owner of that IP address and his street address. Why is it such a problem to look it up?
Even if they had billions of users, which they don't, it wouldn't take more than a few minutes. Or is all this information only kept on paper? OK I'm not that up on computers and IP addresses but it seems easy to me. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |