Porn copyright trolls, pirates, AT&T and Comcast

Generally speaking, I don't think of Comcast and AT&T as being opponents of "copyright abuse" nor "defenders" of internet freedom and yet, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"--

Porn copyright troll sues AT&T and Comcast, says they side with pirates | Ars Technica: " . . . Even assuming that the underlying charges against the subscribers have merit, ISPs are generally neutral intermediaries who are not responsible for policing their users' online activities. And it's absurd to suggest that raising legal objections to Lightspeed's tactics—objections that were ultimately upheld by the Illinois Supreme Court—could constitute "interference" with court orders, or any other kind of misconduct. Naming Comcast and AT&T as defendants in the case also seems like a strategic blunder. The ISPs were sufficiently irritated by Lightspeed's subpoenas to object to them, but the ISPs ultimately did not have a dog in the fight. They wouldn't have suffered any great harm if ultimately ordered to hand over their subscribers' information—indeed, they hand over such information to lawyers and police all the time. But now, with the ISPs as named defendants, they will be strongly motivated to win the case and ensure that no one tries this tactic again. Lightspeed and Prenda will likely face the full force of Comcast and AT&T's vast legal resources, and irritated AT&T and Comcast executives will now be even less inclined to give an inch when Prenda sends them subpoenas on behalf of future clients. "We believe the lawsuit is without merit," an AT&T spokesman told us by e-mail. "An appellate court has already ruled in AT&T's favor in this matter." He noted that, at AT&T's request, the case has been moved to federal court, taking it away from the plaintiff-friendly judge in downstate Illinois who has handled it so far."

Tweet   Follow @johnmpoole