Last month, RIAA-lobbyist-turned-federal-judge Beryl Howell ruled that three mass P2P file-sharing lawsuits before her in Washington, DC could proceed. The Hollywood Reporter called it, rather hyperbolically, "the most important decision to date in the ongoing mass-litigation campaign" (several other federal judges had already come to opposite conclusions). But Howell's work has had an impact—as far away as Illinois, more anonymous P2P defendants are coming forward to settle.

So says Illinois' lone attorney bringing these mass P2P suits. John Steele, divorce-lawyer-turned-porn-copyright-specialist, has had a rough couple of months before judges for the Northern District of Illinois, based in Chicago. He tried moving a recent case downstate, to the Southern District, and he also tried to turn it into a "reverse class action" lawsuit against file-sharers. This hasn't gone well; a judge is currently staying Steele's discovery, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation is opposing his tactics.

But, in a document recently filed with the court, Steele says that more people have recently been calling him without prompting. He chalks it up, in part, to Judge Howell's ruling.

Since the Court’s stay of discovery, Plaintiff’s counsel has received unsolicited contacts from counsel for anonymous parties who wish to resolve outstanding liability with respect to the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint—not just in this action, but in any action. In each instance, Plaintiff’s counsel disclosed the Court’s stay of discovery. Some parties elected to await the outcome of the April 11 hearing while others elected to settle. In absolute numbers, settlement activity in this case has been minimal, although a recent ruling from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seems to have spurred higher levels of settlement interest. Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Does 1- 1,062, No. 1:10-cv-00455, Memorandum Opinion, Doc. No. 40 (D.D.C. Mar. 22, 2011) (Howell, J.). In deciding on the exact arguments raised by the EFF in this case, Judge Howell rejected each and every one of the EFF’s views on First Amendment, personal jurisdiction, and joinder. This 42-page opinion is perhaps the most comprehensive and robust examination to date of the issues surrounding mass copyright infringement actions. Counsel for some Putative Defendants took notice of this decision and voluntary contacted Plaintiff’s counsel seeking resolution of all claims.

Howell had ruled that suing hundreds or thousands of anonymous defendants at once was permissible, since the claims against them were all “logically related.” She had also decided that forcing copyright holders to file a separate suit against each individual would cost too much money early in the case, something that would “further limit their ability to protect their legal rights.” These decisions clashed with many others in which judges have said mass P2P cases are an attempt to unfairly litigate "on the cheap" and that the mass "joinder" of individual file-sharers is inappropriate.

But Howell has recently started pushing harder on the P2P attorneys. On April 4, she told lawyers in the Donkeyball case to put up or shut up; by April 15, they need to dismiss every defendant that they do not "intend to sue for copyright infringement in this jurisdiction." Cases can't simply drag on indefinitely without defendants being named just so that lawyers can use the courts to extract settlements. Howell issued similar orders in her other two cases, as well.

This appears to be a theme; judges across the country have finally seen enough of these cases to know exactly what they're about. As a Colorado federal judge put it last week in a Righthaven copyright suit, "Although Plaintiff’s business model relies in large part upon reaching settlement agreements with a minimal investment of time and effort, the purpose of the courts is to provide a forum for the orderly, just, and timely resolution of controversies and disputes. Plaintiff’s wishes to the contrary, the courts are not merely tools for encouraging and exacting settlements from Defendants cowed by the potential costs of litigation and liability."

Still, in the short term, it looks like specific rulings can put a little more cash in P2P lawyers' pockets.