A group of defendants accused of illegally sharing the movie Far Cry on P2P networks have banded together to fight against the charges. Now they are finding that in choosing to defend themselves they must also sacrifice their anonymity.
Over 4,000 unidentified individuals have been targeted by the US Copyright group for sharing the Uwe Boll film on BitTorrent. As with all file-sharing cases, those who are accused of the crime have been identified only based upon the IP addresses associated with the illegal activity.
In a situation that is rare in these cases, several defendants have hired lawyers to file a joint motion asking the court to quash the subpoenas and dismiss their clients from the lawsuit. They are also asking that the film’s production company reimburse defendants for all of their legal fees, as well as be granted an allowance from the court to remain anonymous.
Unfortunately for the defendants, it is required that all court proceedings remain “open”, which includes the publication of the identity of those involved in the case. Judge Rosemary Collyer, who has been overseeing the case from the beginning, has refused to grant an exception in this case.
"In the event that John Does who have filed pleadings fail to satisfactorily identify themselves, the Court may strike their pleadings," Collyer stated during proceedings. "Future filings by John Does will not be permitted without such identification."
The defendants must now submit their names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses to the court before October 29th or any motion to quash will be denied.
While this is a fine requirement for most legal cases, it doesn’t seem like requiring self-identification should be required in these cases. An IP address only identifies a computer, not the person using it to perform the alleged illegal activity. These people who have already had their lives pushed into a state of upheaval with this case must also now go through the humiliation of making their personal information public in order to try to set the record straight. And all of this from a court that may not even have jurisdiction over the cases. Where is the justice in that?
