The adult movie business was accused of attempting to coerce resolutions in issues concerning alleged illegal downloading of adult films by shaming the accused in fringer through marketing. I write below about Magistrate Judge Wilson crafting a remedy to shield a purported infringer from a pity that is similar — that of downloading (and seeing??) a Steven Seagal film!

There is an average fact pattern whoever owns the copyright tracks down an IP address where the copyrighted materials were seemingly downloaded or reproduced without permission.

A topic developing in defense of these efforts at discovery is the fact that the subscriber’s identity might not be the real infringer, and therefore the effort to get such discovery might be improper and extensive. Defendants expand the argument to clarify that, sometimes, the copyright holder may try to coerce a resolution by openly identifying the purported infringer.

Does that mean the coffee shop’s workers or it always participated in the infringing action? No. But does it mean that that store could possibly be in a better position to advise the copyright owner who the purported infringer could be? Or maybe the coffee shop will have records from which that advice could be derived.

Good Guy Productions asserts possession of the copyright to the Steven Seagal movie “A Good Man” and asserts illegal downloading of the movie happened in the Middle District of Florida. The subpoena was permitted by the Court, just by means of these states:

The plaintiff shall notify the defendant of the possibility for sanctions under Rule 11, Fed.R.Civ.P., if the defendant is wrongly identified. The plaintiff shall supply the defendant with a copy of the Order.

The plaintiff must notify the defendant that she or he might submit an electronic or written objection to the plaintiff’s counsel. In case the defendant claims that she or he didn’t personally commit the infringing action, the defendant must identify the person in charge of the infringement, or, in the event the identity of the person that is infringing is not known, provide exculpatory evidence concerning the defendant’s innocence. The plaintiff’s counsel shall file, or try to file, that expostulation, under seal, with this particular court, along with any reply the plaintiff has to the objection. Find Local Rule 1.09. Then, the court will think about the defendant’s objection as well as the answer, and decide whether the case shall continue against the defendant that is identified.

This strategy appears to hit a balance between a plaintiff’s demand to obtain a possibly misidentified defendant’s rights as well as discovery. We are going to see if other courts are inclined to follow this kind of approach.