0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
When representatives of copyright holders want to pursue file-sharers they need ISPs to collaborate and hand them over the personal data of the customers accused of online piracy. While many ISPs don’t put up much of a fight, there are some that don’t give in to p2p litigators’ demands so easily.Midcontinent Communications, a small South Dakotan ISP, is such an example.Similarly to other numerous ISPs, MC has received a subpoena asking it to make available confidential info on customers allegedly involved in file-sharing activity over p2p networks. The ISP promptly responded by filing a motion to quash in South Dakota District Court. The court ruled in its favour in September 2010 saying that jurisdictional issues were not met (the fact the ISPS had been subpoenaed via fax by the US Copyright Group rather than registered mail or in person weighed pretty heavily).Due to the obvious procedures when dealing with file-sharing cases, throughout the US District Court system a general consensus emerged – that mass copyright lawsuits violate jurisdictional boundaries.Midcontinent Communications was again hit with a subpoena – and it knew just what to. On April 5 the ISP “…moves the Court to quash that subpoena to allow Midcontinent Communications a reasonable opportunity to alert subscribers and customers of a potential release of information, consistent with its privacy policies and statements adopted in consideration of federal law, before requiring such disclosure, and to assure adequate protections against undue burden or expense, consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure)”The importance of Federal Rule 45 lies in the fact it specifies the conditions under which a subpoena can be considered legal.Despite the little relevance MC appeared to have at he beginning of this legal p2p battle, its strategy may turn out to be one that can set an example and inspire fellow ISPs in future clashes with copyright holders and their claims.