Home > Lawsuits > repeat infringer >
As part of an ongoing piracy liability lawsuit, internet provider Grande is required to share the personal data of 125 subscribers with a group of filmmakers. Several subscribers filed objections and denied wrongdoing. However, the Texas federal court concludes that they may be able to offer key evidence, while noting that your privacy is adequately protected.
Two years ago, a group of various film companies, including the makers of Hellboy, Rambo V, The Hitman's Bodyguard and Dallas Buyer's Club, defendant Internet provider Grande Communications.
The filmmakers accused the Astound-owned ISP of not doing enough to stop subscriber hacking. Specifically, they alleged that the company failed to fire repeat offenders.
In addition to millions of dollars in potential damages, the plaintiffs also called for strict crackdowns on hacking. This includes a three-strike termination policy against suspected pirates, as well as a full block of several pirate sites, including The Pirate Bay.
Motion to dismiss denied
Grande disputed the claims and filed a motion to dismiss the case. The ISP addressed the content of the allegations, describing the film companies and their anti-piracy partner Maverickeye as "copyright trolls."
After reviewing the positions of both sides, the Texas federal court largely denied the motion to dismiss, noting that the filmmakers' allegations are plausible enough for the case to continue. However, the injunction requested to block pirate sites was dismissed, although it may be reintroduced at a later stage.
The order means that the case will continue and the parties will continue to gather evidence. This brings us to the next item on the court's agenda; a request from the filmmakers to reveal the identities of 125 Grande subscribers who were repeatedly singled out for sharing pirated movies.
Subscribers Object
The ID application was submitted last year. The filmmakers say they have no intention of pursuing legal claims against users, but the companies would like to contact them for more information on Grande's repeat infringer policy and other issues related to their lawsuits.
A court order clarified that 'all Protected Information provided by any party or non-party...will be used solely for the purpose of...trial...and for no other purpose...'
Despite these assurances, at least six underwriters filed official objections with the court. Almost all denied downloading the pirated movies, and one subscriber said he had never received a copyright infringement complaint, contrary to what the filmmakers claim.
Objections overturned
After reviewing the subscribers' objections, which were not shared with the filmmakers and the ISP, Magistrate Judge Dustin Howell decided to overturn them. This means that Grande must identify the 125 subscribers and share their personal data with the plaintiffs.
Justice Howell does not refute the accuracy of the objections, but concludes that the interests of the film companies outweigh the privacy concerns of subscribers. Specifically, subscribers can provide important evidence to support the filmmakers' claims.
โThe Court agrees with Plaintiffs that subscriber information is relevant to the issues of fact to be addressed in this case and that the burden imposed on subscribers is not undue,โ Judge Howell writes.
"The plaintiffs explain in their motion that the subscriber information will allow the plaintiffs to link individual users to the allegedly infringing IP addresses and to respond to Grande's safe harbor defense regarding the effectiveness of Grande's notification procedure."
The neighbors?
Judge Howell further notes that it doesn't matter if the account holders hacked into something themselves. If a neighbor or friend used your connection to download something, the request for information would still be valid for the purposes of this lawsuit.
Finally, the court addresses privacy concerns. Judge Howell notes that the aforementioned protection order prevents film companies from using subscribers' details for anything unrelated to their case against Grande.
โ[T]The court order protecting the privacy of subscribers' information and limiting its use adequately addresses the objectors' concerns about the burden imposed by disclosing their personal information for use in this case," Judge Howell said.
As mentioned above, there was one subscriber who objected claiming they never received a copyright infringement notice from Grande. The court also dismissed this objection, as the lack of notice is particularly relevant to the case at hand.
It is unknown if the filmmakers will be able to get any useful information from subscribers, but in case they do, details are likely to surface in the near future.
Instant update: The film companies have just submitted a request to disclose the rights of subscribers. objections (pdf), as these might also prove useful. This request only applies to the parties in this case, not the general public.
โ[T]The Court noted that in an objection [โฆ] the subscriber claimed not to have received notification from the Respondent that his account had infringed copyrighted material. Accordingly, this and the other objections are relevant to proving Claimants' assertions and rebutting Defendant's assertion that it has implemented a repeat infringer policy."
โ
A copy of the Order Overriding Subscribers' Objections, issued by Magistrate Judge Dustin Howell, is available. here (pdf)
