| Latest file sharing news |
Out of all the USCG (US Copyright Group) related copyright complaints floating around federal court in DC, there was one case that stood out - John Doe #4 vs. Verizon. Like several other defendants in these cases, John Doe felt he (or she?) had nothing to do with the case, and filed a motion to quash. But unlike any of the other case, John Doe #4's efforts existed as its own case against Verizon.
Like the 749 other unnamed individuals accused of sharing Word Wide Entertainment's work (such as The Gray Man), subpoenas were sent to the ISPs earlier this year. According to court records, 6 individuals filed motions to quash - but stay within he currently existing case. However, John Doe #4 decided to file his own "miscellaneous motion", requesting his own case against Verizon.
By doing this, John Doe #4 indicates his efforts to prevent his identifiable information from being revealed will be better served.
"The Plaintiff is requesting the court to allow the use of the name John Doe #4, to represent as the name for the Plaintiff in the case of the subpeona issued February 19,2010 to Verizon Online..."
In John Doe #4's subsequent motion to quash, he claims to have no working knowledge of The Gray Man - a claim that many can relate to.
"The Plaintiff, John Doe #4 contends that he has no knowledge of any such downloading of a copy of the film "The Gray Man"...The Defendant, John Doe also contends he does not have any understanding of the process of downloading this film and therefore is unaware of any "torrent" infringement as stated in the plaintiffs motion. This serious invasion of rights to privacy is being violated, because Plaintiff can not and has not proven such material was copied by John Doe #4..."
The words "plaintiff" and "defendant" are used quite liberally in the motions filed. In this case, he's the plaintiff since he's bringing action against Verizon, but he's also a defendant in West Bay One vs. John Does 1-749...oy. John Doe #4's independent fight to have the case against him dismissed came to an unfortunate end. In May, the Judge overseeing the case denied his motion. Yesterday, the case was finally terminated, and his efforts to prevent his identifiable information from being revealed ended in failure.
Share
Date: 2010-08-12 |