Lawyers for the US Copyright Group have sued more than 14,000 people in 2010, all of them in the federal courts of Washington, DC. Individuals have moved to quash the subpoenas that would expose their names, but these have been almost wholly rejected, in large part because they were written (sometimes by hand) by individual defendants making inappropriate arguments. But now, some defendants are fighting back in a much savvier way, with actual lawyers. And they want their pound of flesh from rightsholders.

The Far Cry case targets more than 4,000 "Doe" defendants alleged to have shared that particular Uwe Boll film using BitTorrent, and it's in that case that a major "Omnibus Motion" has now been filed. A group of defendants have hired several DC lawyers to file a joint motion demanding that the subpoenas in the case be quashed, that the defendants be dismissed from the litigation, and that Boll's production company cover their legal expenses (something probably not anticipated by Boll's firm, Achte/Neunte Boll Kino Beteiligungs GmbH, when it signed on with US Copyright Group to score some cash).

The Omnibus Motion argues that the DC court has no personal jurisdiction over these particular defendants, since none of them live or work in DC—and neither do their ISPs. US Copyright Group lawyers have already argued before this court that they simply can't know where people live just from an IP address and that using the DC court to issue subpoenas is proper. The Omnibus Motion couldn't disagree more.

"Plaintiff knew, or could have easily discovered through the use of free, public domain internet tools the general geographic location of the Moving Defendants," write the lawyers. "The fact is that neither the Moving Defendants’ computers, nor their respective ISPs were located within the boundaries of this District at the time of the alleged infringement. Despite this knowledge Plaintiff nonetheless pursued an action in this Court."

To prove the point, the lawyers demonstrated on one particular Doe's IP address, 24.253.45.84. The result showed Cox as the ISP, while the address was assigned out of Las Vegas—which is in fact where the defendant lives. "Thus, with a few clicks, counsel for Plaintiff (or anyone else) could have discovered that the IP addresses which are the subject of their subpoena receive Internet service through Cox Communications," says the Omnibus Motion. "Without any of the information sought in the subpoena, the Plaintiff already knows that the customer's ISP is located in Atlanta, Georgia and that Pat Doe was located in Las Vegas, Nevada on the date and time of the alleged infringement."

The result is that it would be "difficult to draft a more defective claim" than the plaintiffs have drafted here. "In truth, what they are asserting is little more than an argument for generalized 'Internet jurisdiction,' something this very court has rejected."

Because the plaintiff's actions caused these Does to incur legal fees defending themselves in a distant court, "an award of attorneys' fees and costs in their favor is appropriate." Talk about turning the tables; if the argument is accepted by the judge, the plaintiffs could be on the hook for thousands of similar payouts in multiple cases.

Judge Rosemary Collyer, who oversees the Far Cry case, has showed some sympathy for complaints about jurisdiction in the past, granting a hearing to the EFF and ACLU over the matter a few months back though declining to act at the time. And last week she demanded to hear a good argument about jurisdiction after two of the Does in the case identified themselves and noted that they lived outside of DC.

"Mr. Ansell lists an address in Pennsylvania, and Mr. Wright lists one in Oregon," she noted. "Because they live elsewhere, it is questionable whether Mssrs. Ansell and Wright have had sufficient contact with the District of Columbia to warrant this Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over them. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE, no later than September 30, 2010, why this case should not be dismissed against Mr. Ansell and Mr. Wright for lack of personal jurisdiction."

But dismissing a case is one thing (and Collyer may not even do that); awarding attorneys fees to the many Does who stand behind the Omnibus Motion is another, and it's a move that might well put the kibosh on the US Copyright Group's entrepreneurial lawyering.