Looks like that small battalion of attorneys who've agreed to represent accused file sharers of Hurt Locker, Far Cry, and other movies had better gird their loins. The Hollywood Reporter says that the law office spearheading these lawsuits has recruited over a dozen smaller firms around the United States to get the actions underway. They'll answer to the US Copyright Group as they go after defendants who decline to settle.

"Beginning the first week of August, expect an explosion of lawsuits around the nation," The Reporter warns.

Easy and quick

As of May, about 5,000 "John Doe" defendants were involved in the Hurt Locker affair, the biggest of a slew of copyright infringement cases that have been making headlines. These folks have or will soon receive letters demanding something in the order of $1,500 to $2,500 or face demands in court that could go way beyond that.

"By settling," the US Copyright Group advises defendants on its FAQ site, "you will avoid the potential for a jury verdict against you that could exceed the amount of the settlement (up to $150,000, for willful infringement) and include an award of our client's attorneys' fees, which will certainly be several thousand dollars more. Finally, settling allows you to resolve the claim quickly and easily, over the Internet or by mail."

In other words, credit cards accepted—operators standing by.

When last we left this case, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union tried to convince a Washington DC District Court of the legal impropriety of using "joinder" in this instance—that is, the whole-hog suing of thousands of alleged "Far Cry" downloading Does who have no relationship to each other. The subpoenas "should be quashed," they added, because most of these defendants don't live in the trial venue (DC). In addition, the evidence against them is pretty slim, based mostly on pages of supposedly infringing IP addresses.

This effort did not succeed, but the judge in question did agree to a "creative solution" to the case. A new letter of notification will soon be released to defendants, which will outline ways that they can fight back. All parties involved in the case must agree to the content of these letters, drafts of which are now available (clean version; the draft with proposed edits).

30 days

The letter tells Does that a subpoena has been sent to their Internet Service Provider in a bid to determine their identity as an alleged downloader of Far Cry. It assures recipients that they're involved in a civil lawsuit. "You have not been charged with any crime."

But:

If you want to prevent being identified, you have 30 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to block the subpoena or to dismiss the case against you. You can do this by filing a legal document called a 'motion.' You must also notify your ISP that you have asked the court to do so. If you need more than 30 days to file such a motion or find a lawyer to assist you, you can file a motion asking for an extension of time; you should notify your ISP if you file a motion asking for more time.

The advisory adds that defendants may be able to push back on the District Court for the District of Columbia's personal jurisdiction over them. "However, please note that even if your challenge is successful, the Plaintiff can still file against you in the state in which a court has personal jurisdiction over you."

Quash and vacate

It's not clear who asked for what edits, but proposed deletions include "The Plaintiffs want the court to order you to pay them significant damages, which may be thousands of dollars, for uploading or downloading the movie without permission," and the phrase "to file a motion to quash or vacate the subpoena."

And it looks like somebody, probably the plaintiffs, want this paragraph cut out entirely:

You may also be able to challenge the subpoena or the lawsuit on other grounds, including that it was improper to add you into the lawsuit with others (called "joinder"), or that the First Amendment requirements for revealing your name and address have not been met. A "friend of the court" brief on those issues was filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union and Public Citizen, Inc., and is available here: https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/uscg_does/Achte-NeunteFinalBrief.pdf

The drafts indicate that EFF and the ACLU want it to include a link to the website that EFF has set up, letting Does know where they can go to get legal help. The missive will include a plaintiffs' site as well.

"You should not call the Court," the letter concludes. "Again, you may wish to retain an attorney to discuss these issues and your options."