HOW TO BEST READ THE ARTICLES ON THIS SITE.

This site is dedicated to educating the internet user accused of copyright infringement via the peer-to-peer (P2P) software (a.k.a. “bittorrent”).  Most likely, you received a letter from your ISP in the mail along with a subpoena, where you are identified as a “John Doe” defendant in a lawsuit.  Alternatively, you have been contacted by the plaintiff attorney demanding that you pay a settlement “or else you will be named and served in a lawsuit against you.”  Most of these cases are filed in a federal court, thus an attorney licensed in any state can represent you.

Prior to setting up an appointment with a Cashman Law Firm, PLLC attorney, to properly educate you about the issues to be discussed on our phone consultation, it is best to read the articles as the cases have unfolded, from bottom-up. Please read these pages in the following order: [1][2][3][4]

You will find a copy of these instructions on the right sidebar of each page. –>

3 thoughts on “HOW TO BEST READ THE ARTICLES ON THIS SITE.”

  1. Something I thought you would find interesting:

    http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/07/judge-slashes-p2p-award-again-capitol-v-thomas

    The 1.5 million judgement against Jammie Thomas-Rassett has been reduced to $54,000 by the judge. The judge said:

    [A]n award of $1.5 million for stealing and distributing 24 songs for personal use is appalling. Such an award is so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable. In this particular case, involving a first‑time willful, consumer infringer of limited means who committed illegal song file‑sharing for her own personal use, an award of $2,250 per song, for a total award of $54,000, is the maximum award consistent with due process.

    As this case is used in these threat letters i think it’s important info to know.

    Reply
  2. Wow big ruling in the DC court today see Case 1:11-cv-00301-RLW Document 11
    “Plaintiff can establish such a good faith basis for residence or personal jurisdiction by utilizing geolocation services that are generally available to the public to derive the approximate location of the IP addresses identified for each punitive defendant,” he writes.”

    “It therefore appears that while these geolocation services are not 100% accurate, these services can place a user no farther away than a city that borders the user’s actual location,” the Judge wrote replying to NU Image’s attempt to mislead the court.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

ten − 8 =

Skip to content