Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Quash-And-dismiss Third Degree and Copyright Group

Quash-And-dismiss Third Degree and Copyright Group

Ratings: (0)|Views: 664|Likes:
Published by donjoe2000

More info:

Published by: donjoe2000 on Nov 14, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





)v. ) Civil Action No. 11-CV-01833-BAHDOES 1-152 ) MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY
) SUBPOENA AND MOTION TO DISMISS__________________________/ )
I was not the direct recipient of the subpoena at issue in this case, but am instead an enduser of Comcast Cable, an Internet service provider (ISP) which was served the subpoena andnotified me via a separate letter. These subpoenas are used to reveal the personal information of ISP end users whose Internet Protocol (IP) address is allegedly the source of a copyright
infringement of Plaintiff’s property.
My ISP states that my IP address has been identified asallegedly belonging to one of the defendant
“Does” (a placeholder name used when a defendant’s
true identity is unknown).However, based on a large volume of accounts by previous defendants of copyrightinfringement lawyers, such as Steele Hansmeier, the Law Firm of Ira M. Siegel, K-Beech Inc.and the Law Offices of D. Gill Sperlein, once the end users are identified, they receive persistent
letters and phone calls from the plaintiffs lawyers, dema
nding amounts ranging from $3,000 to$12,000 to avoid a lawsuit.Despite the large volume of demand letters and calls, only a handful of court cases haveactually resulted, with default judgment against defendants who chose not to participate in the judicial process being the ultimate result (see
 IO Group, Inc. v. Does 1-244,
). Thus the purpose of the subpoenas and indeed these lawsuits is to extract settlementpayments from as large a number of end users who have allegedly committed copyrightinfringement as possible, subjecting innocent and guilty end users alike to the same monetarydemands and, significantly, the risk of severe damage to reputation because many of the worksallegedly infringed are adult material.I did not infringe the copyrighted work cited by Plaintiff and was not familiar with it untilreceiving the letter from my ISP. I respectfully request that I be allowed to file this motionwithout revealing my personal identifying subscriber information, because many copyrightinfringement lawyers
prosecute every
who attempts to file a motion to quashthe subpoena. In fact, at least one such lawyer has stated publicly that this is so, and that theintention is to stop other Does from filing motions. This lawyer, who filed multiple cases nearlyidentical to this one, states in a court document that:
“Plaintiff was voluntarily dismissing movants who were seeking to s
ever Doe Defendantsand suing them individually
in the hopes that by doing so it would cause future DoeDefendants in similar litigations in this District and around the country to stop
filingthese motions . . . Plaintiff has every intention of 
suing every one of the movants thatfile a motion to sever
and proceeding to trial if necessary.”
Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-58, case 3:11-cv-00531-JAG
)Such a statement implies that every Doe
s motion to quash is illegitimate, and that onlythe guilty would want subpoenas quashed, but all defendants have an interest in not being namedin a court case having to do with pornography, and in not being harassed to settle. Indeedinnocent defendants have arguably a better reason to file than those guilty: they want to avoidbeing wrongfully connected to a pornographic copyright infringement case which could severelydamage their good name.Incidentally, the Plaintiff quoted in the Collins case was asked by Judge John Gibney Jr.
 to show why they should not be sanctioned for violating Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on “representations to the court
for an almost identical case (
K-Beech, Inc., v. John Does 1-85, case 3:11-cv-00469-JAG
).The Plaintiff in my current case will argue that this motion should be dismissed becauseit was filed anonymously. But as the example cited makes clear, the reason for requestinganonymity for this motion is because I fear this type of selective retaliation by Plaintiff. Indeed,I am so concerned about being singled out and made an example of that I will be mailing themotion to the court and Plaintiff from a State other than my own.By filing this motion anonymously
, I draw attention to Plaintiff’s
tactics in pursuing thisand similar copyright infringement cases. Had I filed this motion under true name or IP address,I would almost certainly be singled out by Plaintiff for selective prosecution, as the lawyer in thecited case explicitly described. This prosecution would then have more to do with using oneindividual who dared file a motion as an example to other defendants who do not settle withPlaintiff, regardless of guilt, and less to do with the alleged copyright infringement.
The nature of these subpoenas and the actions taken by the infringement lawyers indicatea strategy of producing revenue via settlement payments, by subjecting every alleged user to theburden of calls and letters, threat of damage to reputation, and cost of seeking counsel, ultimatelybased only upon their IP addresses, even though an IP address does not prove the culpability of an individual defendant, or even completely isolate a pool of potential defendants, becauseanyone outside of a household can penetrate a wireless network and infringe materials under that
network’s IP address.

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->