{"id":799,"date":"2012-06-30T21:39:30","date_gmt":"2012-06-30T21:39:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/\/?p=799"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:54:08","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:54:08","slug":"internet-service-providers-forced-to-hand-over-customer-names-in-porn-file-sharing-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/internet-service-providers-forced-to-hand-over-customer-names-in-porn-file-sharing-lawsuit\/","title":{"rendered":"Internet Service Providers Forced to Hand Over Customer Names in Porn File-Sharing Lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"
Monday, April 9th 2012 by\u00a0Joel Bronstein<\/strong><\/div>\n

The past week did not finish with a happy ending for internet service customers involved in the illegal use of pornographic videos.\u00a0 In the U.S., District Court Judge Mary A. McLaughlin of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania\u00a0ruled that internet service providers<\/a>\u00a0(\u201cISPs\u201d) were required to disclose the names of subscribers accused of using a file-sharing site to copy a pornographic film.\u00a0 Similarly in the U.K.,London\u2019s High Court ordered O2,<\/a>\u00a0a U.K. broadband provider, to turn over both the names and addresses of over 9,000 customers accused of illegally downloading pornographic movies.
\nIn\u00a0Raw Films Ltd. v. John Does 1-15<\/em>, Raw Films, a British adult film website,\u00a0contended that 15 individuals in the Philadelphia area<\/a>, identified only by their IP addresses, violated federal copyright law by reproducing the pornographic movie \u201cBareback Street Gang.\u201d\u00a0 Raw Films\u2019 complaint alleges that\u00a0the individuals used BitTorrent protocols<\/a>, which works by having an initial user break down the original file into smaller pieces that are later reassembled when another user downloads the file, to reproduce the film.
\nJudge McLaughlin said that an\u00a0internet users\u2019 expectation of privacy does not apply<\/a>\u00a0to situations where the user is allegedly infringing on a party\u2019s copyright.\u00a0\u00a0Her opinion stated<\/a>\u00a0that \u201c[c]ourts analyzing the expectation of privacy possessed by Internet users engaging in online file-sharing have concluded that such expectation is at most minimal because those individuals have already voluntarily given up certain information by engaging in that behavior\u2026[and] a Doe defendant who has allegedly used the Internet to unlawfully download and disseminate copyrighted material does not have a significant expectation of privacy.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIn both the United States and the United Kingdom, internet service providers have been ordered to release customer information of those accused of illegal downloading and file-sharing of pornographic videos.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In ruling on the issue, Judge McLaughlin\u00a0adopted a five-factor test<\/a>\u00a0to determine if the need to disclose outweighs the right to anonymity.\u00a0\u00a0The factors<\/a>\u00a0are: (1) a prima facie claim of infringement, (2) the specificity of the information sought from the ISP, (3) a lack of alternative means of obtaining the information, (4) a \u201ccentral need\u201d for the information in order to bring the claim, and (5) the expectation of privacy held by the objecting party.\u00a0 After balancing the five factors,\u00a0Judge McLaughlin concluded<\/a>\u00a0that ISPs were required to hand over the names of their subscribers.
\nIn the U.K. case, Golden Eye International, an adult film company,\u00a0demanded that O2 release the personal information<\/a>\u00a0of those it accused of illegally downloading a number of the company\u2019s films.\u00a0 Ben Dover, the owner of the company as well as an actor, director, and producer of pornography, claims thatusers used peer-to-peer networks<\/a>\u00a0to download films such as \u201cBooty Bandit\u201d and \u201cEnd Games.\u201d
\nJudge Justice Arnold of the High Court\u00a0ordered O2 to hand over the personal information<\/a>, including the names and addresses, of 9,124 customers to Golden Eye.\u00a0 While he did order O2 to turn over the subscriber\u2019s personal details, Judge Arnold\u00a0stopped Golden Eye from sending<\/a>\u00a0a proposed warning letter to the alleged downloaders demanding upwards of $1,100.
\nIn the U.K. the legal\u00a0precedent\u00a0has now been set, which may lead to more cases involving the release of alleged file-sharers.\u00a0 In the U.S.,\u00a0eighteen suits similar<\/a>\u00a0to\u00a0Raw Films Ltd.<\/em>\u00a0have already been filed in more than a dozen district courts.
\nSo beware illegal file-shares and downloaders of internet porn \u2013 your favorite companies are coming to get you.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Monday, April 9th 2012 by\u00a0Joel Bronstein The past week did not finish with a happy ending for internet service customers involved in the illegal use of pornographic videos.\u00a0 In the U.S., District Court Judge Mary A. McLaughlin of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania\u00a0ruled that internet service providers\u00a0(\u201cISPs\u201d) were required to disclose the names of subscribers …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/799"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=799"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/799\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7716,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/799\/revisions\/7716"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=799"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=799"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=799"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}