Turns out maybe you can't just name a large pool of defendants who don't have any formal relationship vis a vis the sued transaction. Score one for the Constitution and due process. It can't be good to sue 4500 unrelated defendants...except from the plaintiff's perspective. This is the latest information on this issue in D.C., where US Copyright Group has been taking on P2P defendants. Amicus briefs by the ECLU and EFF may have influenced the judge's decision here, it seems.
The situation came about when a group of lawyers convinced plaintiffs to sue various defendants, while also setting up a website where named defendants can settle via an online transaction of a couple of grand. Something just doesn't seem right about that; it seems to really be just a moneymaking scheme for a group of lawyers. But what do I know?
What does this mean for the rest of us? This is good. This means you can't be ganged up on by companies that are well aware that they are arbitrarily singling out defendants in a pool that is extremely large. Plus, P2P is here to stay, and illegal use does not permit any of the interests (lawyers and production companies) represented here to herd defendants together in order to make a lawsuit much easier for themselves while diminishing the unique character of any given defendant's alleged misuse. At least that's how I'm seeing this one.
Lawrence W. Gallick