Comcast refuses to identify alleged BitTorrent pirates

Internet service provider Comcast, inundated with subpoenas to reveal the identities of its customers who are accused of pirating digital content, has asked the court to dismiss the subpoenas, reports TorrentFreak.

The main arguments made by Comcast's lawyers in the request are that the court does not have jurisdiction over all of the named defendants, because many of them do not reside in the district in which they are being sued, and that the copyright holders have no grounds to join so many defendants in one lawsuit. The boldest argument from Comcast's camp is the accusation that the copyright holders are exploiting the court system to coerce defendants into paying for settlements.

"Plaintiffs should not be allowed to profit from unfair litigation tactics whereby they use the offices of the Court as an inexpensive means to gain Doe defendants' personal information and coerce 'settlements' from them," the statement reads. "It is evident in these cases – and the multitude of cases filed by plaintiffs and other pornographers represented by their counsel – that plaintiffs have no interest in actually litigating their claims against the Doe defendants, but simply seek to use the Court and its subpoena powers to obtain sufficient information to shake down the Doe defendants."

Unsurprisingly, the representation for AF Holdings, LLC, the plaintiff in the case, did not take well to this accusation, and responded by accusing Comcast of trying to deny copyright holders their ability to protect their works.

TorrentFreak reports that the case is being handled by Judge Gary Feinerman, who will decide whether to honor Comcast's request to destroy the subpoenas, or force the company to give up the subscriber information.

Source: TorrentFreak

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

The Tomb Raider reboot's rape plot is cheap and here's why

Next Story

TechSpot: Intel Core i7-3720QM: Mobile Ivy Bridge Review

37 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Comcast refuses to identify alleged BitTorrent pirates..... if Comcast release any information from the customer im 100% Comcast will be sue.

Gaara sama said,
Comcast refuses to identify alleged BitTorrent pirates..... if Comcast release any information from the customer im 100% Comcast will be sue.

read their terms of service..they can give what information on you they have if you like it or not, now if you quit the service right now before court is ordered to give it then you are no longer on their service and no longer under their rules so there ya go.

On the subject I'm happy as hell to see Comcast take a stance like this for a change...pretty much anything you hear of them lately is negative.

microjunk said,
this is 2 days old at torrentfreak.... get with the program people.......

perhaps not all of us get our news from torrentfreak. Please let us know the what the judge decides as soon as it comes in since you will most likely be the first to know.

rippleman said,
What of the courts wanted the the names of child porn torrent downloading, would you all say good job? Law is law no matter what isn't it?

it's the law isn't an argument. In fact it's right up there in the list of top logical fallacies ( appeal to authority). what you have created there is something known as a strawman. It is where you build an argument yourself that is easy for you to rip down, which often takes the form of using some high-level morality keystone which not many would dare touch with a 20 foot pole.

Now if you wish to argue a reason why it is good for media holders to shakedown ISPs for user information, so that they can send a nice letter to the user claiming that they owe £5000 in damages, (this is the penalty in the UK) even though it may not have been the account holder that committed the crime. Then be my guest.

rippleman said,
What of the courts wanted the the names of child porn torrent downloading, would you all say good job? Law is law no matter what isn't it?

What if they claimed you were a terrorist and demanded your information so they could arrest and detain you indefinitely? Law is law no matter what, isn't it?

See, I can make silly arguments too.

i am not actually "for the law", just saying that sometimes they get it right and sometimes they get it wrong. I could very well be a terrorist but you shall never know.

Ad Man Gamer said,

it's the law isn't an argument. In fact it's right up there in the list of top logical fallacies ( appeal to authority). what you have created there is something known as a strawman. It is where you build an argument yourself that is easy for you to rip down, which often takes the form of using some high-level morality keystone which not many would dare touch with a 20 foot pole.

Now if you wish to argue a reason why it is good for media holders to shakedown ISPs for user information, so that they can send a nice letter to the user claiming that they owe £5000 in damages, (this is the penalty in the UK) even though it may not have been the account holder that committed the crime. Then be my guest.

they call it an investigation, without inquiring they have no idea.

Ad Man Gamer said,

it's the law isn't an argument. In fact it's right up there in the list of top logical fallacies ( appeal to authority). what you have created there is something known as a strawman. It is where you build an argument yourself that is easy for you to rip down, which often takes the form of using some high-level morality keystone which not many would dare touch with a 20 foot pole.

Now if you wish to argue a reason why it is good for media holders to shakedown ISPs for user information, so that they can send a nice letter to the user claiming that they owe £5000 in damages, (this is the penalty in the UK) even though it may not have been the account holder that committed the crime. Then be my guest.

rippleman said,
What of the courts wanted the the names of child porn torrent downloading, would you all say good job? Law is law no matter what isn't it?

What if someone who fixes computers for a living, and routinely plugs 30 to 40 different computer a week into their network, all of the sudden completes some torrent downloads that were on a customers, or a few different customers computers? And then the fixit guys IP address gets flagged as an illegal downloader? Just curious about that scenario.

Comcast protecting its customers, wow... who would have thought they would side with us for a change?
This is definitely a step in the right direction instead of the bandwidth throttling they made themselves know for.

It's ironic really, these companies are bitching about not being able to "defend their intellectual property" but they're essentially asking Comcast to do the same thing: To spend their own time and money without being reimbursed for what it costs them.

I like the sound of these Comcast lawyers sounds like they ARE doing whats best for their customers, and are not really interested in waisting their time dealing with this crap from these media groups.

I am Reid said,
I like the sound of these Comcast lawyers sounds like they ARE doing whats best for their customers, and are not really interested in waisting their time dealing with this crap from these media groups.

no, if you look into it real hard you see comcast is doing whats best for itself, they are spending too much time and money going through these suponeas, and they don't want to spend the time and money so now they are going to try to stop the MPAA/RIAA/Others from wasteing their time

neufuse said,

no, if you look into it real hard you see comcast is doing whats best for itself, they are spending too much time and money going through these suponeas, and they don't want to spend the time and money so now they are going to try to stop the MPAA/RIAA/Others from wasteing their time

Good god, can't you people just be happy they are doing something other than bending over for once. Jesus @#$#ing christ. They don't defend you - you complain. They do defend you (regardless of why) - you complain.

Is it that hard for you basement dwellers to give credit where it's due?

Wow, surprising move from Comcast, who has AFAIK never been torrent friendly or willing to take a stance against anyone in the matter.

Richeemxx said,
Wow, surprising move from Comcast, who has AFAIK never been torrent friendly or willing to take a stance against anyone in the matter.

Yeah, but they seem to protect their customers from the hassles of dealing with the media mafia.

There is no noble purpose here, its starting to cost them some serious money dealing with all these subpoenas.

This subpoena situation is starting to get interesting, many more ISP's will be thinking like this. But just having an IP is not proof enough!

TrekRich said,
There is no noble purpose here, its starting to cost them some serious money dealing with all these subpoenas.

This subpoena situation is starting to get interesting, many more ISP's will be thinking like this. But just having an IP is not proof enough!

Noble or not they are doing the right thing, had they done the opposite they would have been blasted for selling out their customers.

No one likes to defend the big bad evil corporations but when they are actually doing the right thing and defending their customer base you should at least acknowledge it as a good thing.

In this case good for comcast.

Simon- said,
Who knew that an American ISP would stand up for their customers. This is good news.

They're not standing up for customers...

It's marketing, "Oh look we just 'protected' our customers, has your ISP done that? Join Comcast today!"

Plus Comcast knew it was an easy fight they could win, so why not and get a little of that good publicity they've been lacking lately.

Mystiia said,

They're not standing up for customers...

It's marketing, "Oh look we just 'protected' our customers, has your ISP done that? Join Comcast today!"

Plus Comcast knew it was an easy fight they could win, so why not and get a little of that good publicity they've been lacking lately.


So damned if you do and damned if you don't?

Simon- said,

So damned if you do and damned if you don't?

More like a win, win. Praise if you do. People forget the story after a week and no loss of custom if you dont.

Mystiia said,

Plus Comcast knew it was an easy fight they could win, so why not and get a little of that good publicity they've been lacking lately.

You speak in the pas tense, as if this was already a done deal and finished. Maybe I misread the text, but I thought it said it is still being handled and the judge hasn't yet decided anything.

Mystiia said,

More like a win, win. Praise if you do. People forget the story after a week and no loss of custom if you dont.

Exactly. Sure it is a marketing move. Every move a company takes should consider marketing implications carefully. Difference is that Comcast is going back to the fundamental principle of loyalty between business and customer. Nothing wrong with that.

Odom said,

You speak in the pas tense, as if this was already a done deal and finished. Maybe I misread the text, but I thought it said it is still being handled and the judge hasn't yet decided anything.

I'm sure if they're close to facing a defeat, they'll throw a little cash the judges way to secure victory.

pmdci said,

Difference is that Comcast is going back to the fundamental principle of loyalty between business and customer. Nothing wrong with that.

Loyalty? They don't waste their time with trash like that.

The aim of this is to secure more subscriptions and fool gullible people into thinking that Comcast are watching out for their interests. Just like any major company, Comcast couldn't give a **** about your rights, interests, or how happy you are with the service.

THEY WANT MORE MONEY!!!!

Mystiia said,

They're not standing up for customers...

It's marketing, "Oh look we just 'protected' our customers, has your ISP done that? Join Comcast today!"

Plus Comcast knew it was an easy fight they could win, so why not and get a little of that good publicity they've been lacking lately.

No, it's not that at alll. Their attorneys make $250 an hour. If they don't have to mess with all these subpoenas, it saves the company money.