Source: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2012/05/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:34:06+00:00

Document:
According to this article in TorrentFreak, John Wiley & Sons has withdrawn a "John Doe" case after meeting with resistance from Verizon, and unspecified resistance from the Court.
In Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-11, a bittorrent downloading case against individual John Does in Central Islip, New York, Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay, citing the decision in KBeech v. Does 1-37, has severed as to all defendants except John Doe #1, and granted discovery as to John Doe #1.
I would say the music business will never be the same after this.
Amanda Palmer, who has a lot of friends on Twitter, just raised over $1 million in backing for her album, directly from her fans, on a Kickstarter site, mostly through Twitter and other social media.
Congratulations to the music industry.
After this, who needs a big greedy record company?
All you need is a good twitter presence, and a lot of good fans.
Oral argument of the motion to quash in Malibu Media v. Does 1-13 has been scheduled for June 1st.
You may recall that recently it was revealed, in Malibu Media v. Does 1-13, that Verizon had turned over the identities of its subscribers to the plaintiff's counsel five (5) days PRIOR to the subpoena return date, and three (3) days prior to the Court's order staying enforcement of the subpoena, thus preventing the court from ruling on the pending motion to quash (PDF) prior to disclosure.
Plaintiff's lawyer, instead of immediately advising the Court, waited ten (10) days, and then calmly made what he called a "motion for clarification" asking for permission to go ahead and use the information.
MP3Tunes Inc., the defendant in Capitol Records v. MP3Tunes Inc., has filed for bankruptcy, according to this report from Reuters.
In Malibu Media v. Does 1-13, another BitTorrent downloading "John Doe" case, a defendant has moved to sever the actions, and to quash the subpoenas.
Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle has issued an order staying enforcement of the subpoenas pending a determination of the motion.
In K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-37, and in 3 other similar BitTorrent downloading cases pending in the US District Court for the Eastern District, in Brooklyn, the plaintiffs' motions for expedited discovery have been denied, the cases against the various John Doe defendants severed, and the defendants' motions to quash were in most respects granted, in a report and recommendation by Magistrate Judge Gary Brown.
The complaints assert that the defendants – identified only by IP address – were the individuals who downloaded the subject “work” and participated in the BitTorrent swarm. However, the assumption that the person who pays for Internet access at a given location is the same individual who allegedly downloaded a single sexually explicit film is tenuous, and one that has grown more so over time. An IP address provides only the location at which one of any number of computer devices may be deployed, much like a telephone number can be used for any number of telephones...... Thus, it is no more likely that the subscriber to an IP address carried out a particular computer function – here the purported illegal downloading of a single pornographic film – than to say an individual who pays the telephone bill made a specific telephone call. Indeed, due to the increasingly popularity of wireless routers, it much less likely. While a decade ago, home wireless networks were nearly non-existent, 61% of US homes now have wireless access.5 Several of the ISPs at issue in this case provide a complimentary wireless router as part of Internet service. As a result, a single IP address usually supports multiple computer devices – which unlike traditional telephones can be operated simultaneously by different individuals. See U.S. v. Latham, 2007 WL 4563459, at *4 (D.Nev. Dec. 18, 2007). Different family members, or even visitors, could have performed the alleged downloads. Unless the wireless router has been appropriately secured (and in some cases, even if it has been secured), neighbors or passersby could access the Internet using the IP address assigned to a particular subscriber and download the plaintiff’s film.
[A]lthough the complaints state that IP addresses are assigned to “devices” and thus by discovering the individual associated with that IP address will reveal “defendants’ true identity,” this is unlikely to be the case. Most, if not all, of the IP addresses will actually reflect a wireless router or other networking device, meaning that while the ISPs will provide the name of its subscriber, the alleged infringer could be the subscriber, a member of his or her family, an employee, invitee, neighbor or interloper.
In the four cases before this Court, plaintiffs have improperly avoided more than $25,000 in filing fees by employing its swarm joinder theory. Considering all the cases filed by just these three plaintiffs in this district, more than $100,000 in filing fees have been evaded. If the reported estimates that hundreds of thousands of such defendants have been sued nationwide, plaintiffs in similar actions may be evading millions of dollars in filing fees annually. Nationwide, these plaintiffs have availed themselves of the resources of the court system on a scale rarely seen. It seems improper that they should profit without paying statutorily required fees.
In Perfect 10 v. Tumbler, the photo sharing site Tumblr has been sued for copyright infringement.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.