2 Jul 12 Update
Another Torrent Freak article. $7000 Fine For Sharing WordPress For Dummies on BitTorrent.
This is a default judgement after Robert Carpenter failed to respond to the summons/complaint. The judge fined Mr. Carpenter $5K for copyright infringement and $2K for trademark infringement. This goes to show you what can happen if you ignore a court summons. Plaintiff in this case had no more evidence than the public IP address it recorded. Wiley obviously felt that Mr. Carpenter wasn’t going to do anything and pressed ahead with a default judgement.
11 May 12 Update
Here is a recent article at Torrent Freak. Verizon Refuses To Identify Alleged BitTorrent Pirates -
While most Internet providers generally don’t object to a court-ordered subpoena, Verizon has refused to hand over the personal details of accused subscribers. One of the reasons given by Verizon is that Wiley is demanding the information for improper purposes, namely “to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.”
In addition, the Internet provider doubts whether the subpoena will lead to the discovery of “relevant information.” In other words, Verizon seems to doubt that the person who pays for the account is also the infringer.
I will have to see what documents are available on this recent development.
25 Apr 12 Update
I was able to obtain some documents from one of the Wiley case, specially 1:12-cv-01352, John Wiley and Sons against John Does 1-24.
- Complaint_01352(NY) - Nothing surprising, except that ALL the Does/Public IP addresses have the same date/time they were identified (16 Feb 2012, 3:41PM EST) as sharing. Still no information in the complaint states they shared this file between each other, but date/time is the same. A bit harder to attack joinder.
- MTQ_Doe_01352(NY) - Very simple Motion to Quash Wiley is going to have no problem getting denied – only stated that they didn’t do it.
- Op_MTQ_01352(NY) - The Trolls response to the MTQ.
- WileySettleLTR_01352 - Wiley settlement letter from Dunnegan & Scileppi. Only asks for $750 and there is no non-disclosure agreement attached to it. Part of the 1st page is missing – sorry.
Thanks to Ernesto and Torrent Freak for putting out the original article on this – Major Book Publisher Demands Jury Trial Against BitTorrent Pirates
I wanted to make sure this got some additional exposure. There is the obvious difference of material involved in the “Dummies” books BT cases – compared to our standard Troll porn titles, such as “Rump Wrangler Twinks.” The books are easy to defend under Article 1, Section 8, US Constitution:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
A recent development in the Dummies BT piracy cases is the Plaintiff (John Wiley & Sons) is starting to name individual Does and is threatening to actually take them to trial. http://www.scribd.com/doc/89933488/Wileey-Trial Well, we all know that “talk is cheap,” especially when comes from the mouth of a Troll. The Troll in this case (William Dunnegan) just named 4 New York personnel in a “Dummies” case. Plaintiff claims they are taking these four to trial, “…as a part of Wiley’s overall copyright enforcement and education program.”
The next step for this Plaintiff will be to serve a summons on the 4 individuals and see if they will answer the complaint or possibly “default.” It is more likely Plaintiff will see if this move scares these 4 into settling and possibly sends a message to the other Does who have yet to settle. This reminds me of the saying, “You can take the girl out of the trailer park, but you can’t take the trailer park out of the girl.” A Copyright Troll is still a Copyright Troll, even if you can get him away from the porn.
I personally don’t think Plaintiff will go forward with a full trial. The risk of a loss is just too great unless there is some other credible evidence. Just because this case deals with a “Dummies” book and not porn, doesn’t change the fact that the “evidence” is still the same (Weak) - the Public IP Address. If Plaintiff does take one of these people to full trial, their evidence collection methods and personnel are going to be a huge target for the defense. Once their questionable methods and lack of certification (software & personnel) are exposed, the Troll will cut and run. If Wiley and Sons has any brains among them, they had better monitor the following cases:
- Liuxia Wong v. HDP,4:12-cv-00469, Northern District of California
- Seth Abrahams v. HDP,3:12-cv-01006, Northern District of California
- Bailey Zwarycz v. Third Degree Films, 1:11-cv-01833-BAH, District of Columbia
All it takes is one pissed off Doe motivated to fight. They file a counterclaim and Plaintiff is in a world of #$%! The Troll also knows that is safer and easier to work out a settlement than make money by going through a full trial.
Here is a Nov 2011 Techdirt Article on this.