[x-pubpol] Porn copyright troll sues AT&T and Comcast, says they side with pirates

[Joly MacFie]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/porn-copyright-troll-sues-att-and-comcast-says-they-side-with-pirates/

By Timothy B. Lee

One of the nation's most prolific P2P copyright trolls has raised the
stakes in its ongoing fight with two leading ISPs, naming AT&T and Comcast
as defendants in an Illinois lawsuit.

The law firms behind these mass lawsuits have accused
ISPs<http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/06/time-warner-cable-a-good-isp-for-copyright-infringers/>
of
trying to profit from their customers' infringing activity for years. But
that's often just talk. While disputes over subpoenas have led trolls and
ISPs to regularly cross swords in the courtroom, we're not aware of any
cases of an ISP being named as a defendant in one of these lawsuits.

That changed last week in an Illinois case. Prenda Law, representing the
porn company Lightspeed Media, had issued subpoenas seeking the identity of
6,600 people. AT&T and Comcast objected to these subpoenas. In July, the
Illinois Supreme Court sided with the
ISPs<http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/illinois-supreme-court-nixes-latest-porn-trolling-scheme/>
and
quashed the subpoenas.

Lightspeed's response to this setback? It added AT&T and Comcast as
defendants in its lawsuit. The ISPs now stand accused of "negligence,
computer fraud and abuse, civil conspiracy, violations of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practice Act, and aiding and abetting."

"The ISPs chose to interpose themselves in this litigation, interfere with
the Court's Orders, evade subpoenas, and prevent and obstruct Plaintiff
from learning the identity of those ISP subscribers hacking into and
stealing from its website," Lightspeed writes. AT&T and Comcast has also
failed to take "any actions to prevent their subscribers from committing
criminal and tortious acts against Plaintiff even after being on actual
notice of the criminal and tortious activity."

Lightspeed says that the ISP defendants were "unjustly enriched because,
while engaging in a dilatory legal strategy designed solely to prevent
Plaintiff from learning the identities of their subscribers, they continued
to collect subscriber fees from subscribers who did, and continued to, hack
into and steal from Plaintiff's website."

Lightspeed also objects to the fact that AT&T and Comcast "acted as *de
facto* counsel" for the alleged hackers "in exchange for continued receipt
of subscriber fees." As a result, they effectively "reached an agreement to
allow and/or shelter the continued hacking into and theft from Plaintiff's
website."
Provoking the sleeping giant

This argument seems unlikely to prevail. Even assuming that the underlying
charges against the subscribers have merit, ISPs are generally neutral
intermediaries who are not responsible for policing their users' online
activities. And it's absurd to suggest that raising legal objections to
Lightspeed's tactics—objections that were ultimately *upheld* by the
Illinois Supreme Court—could constitute "interference" with court orders,
or any other kind of misconduct.

Naming Comcast and AT&T as defendants in the case also seems like a
strategic blunder. The ISPs were sufficiently irritated by Lightspeed's
subpoenas to object to them, but the ISPs ultimately did not have a dog in
the fight. They wouldn't have suffered any great harm if ultimately ordered
to hand over their subscribers' information—indeed, they hand over such
information to lawyers and police all the time.

But now, with the ISPs as named defendants, they will be strongly motivated
to win the case and ensure that no one tries this tactic again. Lightspeed
and Prenda will likely face the full force of Comcast and AT&T's vast legal
resources, and irritated AT&T and Comcast executives will now be even less
inclined to give an inch when Prenda sends them subpoenas on behalf of
future clients.

"We believe the lawsuit is without merit," an AT&T spokesman told us by
e-mail. "An appellate court has already ruled in AT&T's favor in this
matter."

He noted that, at AT&T's request, the case has been moved to federal court,
taking it away from the plaintiff-friendly judge in downstate Illinois who
has handled it so far.


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.isoc-ny.org/pipermail/x-pubpol-isoc-ny.org/attachments/20120811/2c572a6d/attachment-0001.htm>