Since the RIAA ended its campaign against music file sharers, a new group of lawsuits targeting users of p2p networks like BitTorrent have been making headlines. Private law firms representing copyright owners of motion pictures have, to date, served notices on almost 100,000 users of p2p software, alleging infringing activity.
Recently, some of the tactics used by these law firms have come under fire, both by commentators and the potential defendants themselves. After obtaining the user’s information via subpoena from the user’s ISP, the attorneys send a letter of notice to the alleged infringer offering a pre-suit settlement. One recipient of such a letter fought back, filing a class-action lawsuit last November against the firm of Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver (known as the US Copyright Group). Dmitriy Shirokov received a letter from the firm alleging that he had shared Uwe Boll’s film “Far Cry” on the BitTorrent network. Dmitriy’s complaint against the USCG alleged multiple claims relating to the settlement tactics the firm employed; among the 25 claims are extortion, conspiracy, and several counts of fraud.
This week, the USCG responded to Shirokov’s complaint, claiming that an individual like Shirokov, who hadn’t paid a settlement, hadn’t been harmed and thus didn’t have standing to sue. Additionally, the firm asserts that though its conduct may be such that it could result in judicial sanctions, its course of conduct isn’t actionable. A report by Arstechnica notes the obvious ethical issues this case presents – it can’t be true that a lawyer only owes a duty to his own client and can operate unethically towards others.
The USCG has had its share of other hurdles in the “Far Cry” case. It had to drop most defendants because they were outside the jurisdiction of the court where the cases were filed. Additonally, as Shirokov’s complaint highlights, the copyright registration for “Far Cry” may have been filed too late. Under §412 of the Copyright Act, this would limit the firm’s ability to obtain statutory damages and attorneys fees for any infringing conduct occurring before registration. The problem here is that your average p2p user isn’t well versed in copyright law. Upon receiving a settlement notice, they’re more likely to cut their losses and pay up than to investigate the merits of the claim.