| Latest file sharing news |
Today Slyck gives a rundown of the latest developments in the massive BitTorrent lawsuit campaign initiated by the US Copyright Group (USCG). There are three significant developments related to three distinct cases. We'll break up each case and discuss the latest happenings.
In the Achte/Neunte case, otherwise known as the Far Cry lawsuits, one of the defendants who filed a motion to quash reached an agreement with the USCG. As you'll recall, the USCG at first opposed the defense's efforts to have the case dismissed, but after some negotiations the defense is now square with the house. From the USCG's motion:
"The parties hereby move to withdraw the motion to quash the subpoena served on Charter Communications, Inc. filed in the form of a May 18, 2010 letter to the court by counsel for one of the Doe Defendants (Hunter S. Freeman of the McNair Law Firm). [Doc. No. 35, pp. 1-2] Good cause exists to withdraw the motion, as the parties have reached an amicable resolution of this matter. This consented withdrawal does not affect the remainder of Doc. No. 35, which is a letter motion to quash the Charter subpoena filed by an anonymous Doe Defendant on or about May 18, 2010."
The key words in this motion are "amicable resolution". The motion filed in court on August 6th gives no mention to what that resolution was - did the defense prove it wasn't them or was a monetary arrangement made? Typically this type of information is confidential, however, if it becomes public we'll be sure to pass it your way.
Moving on to the Voltage Pictures case, also known as the Hurt Locker lawsuits, one of the John Doe defendants has filed a motion to dismiss the case against him. His name is Jeff Kowalski, and not only does the USCG want him off the case, it appears Mr. Kowalski is looking to bail out too. This circumstance is particularly interesting.
According to the court records, no individuals have been named yet in the Hurt Locker case. However, Mr. Kowalski managed to insert himself into the case by filing motions as a defendant. Although he never received a complaint, he feels he might become one. In one of several documents submitted by Mr. Kowalski, he states he isn’t contracted with any ISP, but downloads movies using open WIFI connections. He also states he could have downloaded the Plaintiff’s movies using the BitThief BitTorrent client – which permits downloading only. Why would anyone admit to such things or voluntarily insert themselves?
Date: 2010-08-08 |