An excellent paper: “Copyright Infringement in Cyberspace – Decoding Strict Liability”

One of the readers spotted an excellent paper written by a DC attorney Guity Deyhimy, “Copyright Infringement in Cyberspace – Decoding Strict Liability.” This paper was published in the Journal of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia in May 2011.

This paper questions the notion that a dynamic IP address coupled with a timestamp reliably identifies an alleged infringer. Ms. Deyhimy sees the same problems with the “business model” of copyright trolls as we discuss daily in this blog:

A great number of these Doe defendants would testify under oath that in fact they did not download and have no knowledge of the allegedly unlawful download using their respective dynamic IP addresses. The specter of substantial legal expenses in defense of a proceeding away from home, however, often militates towards an agreement to pay between $1,000 and $3,500, to purchase freedom from prosecution of the case against them.

While a few of this blog’s commenters admit that they indeed shared the files in question, the majority are saying something like: “What is going on here? I haven’t done anything and I’m getting these threatening letters. Can somebody help me?” The high collateral damage rate inherent in the current state of the Internet technology has always been the main concern of my postings (needless to say that I myself was caught in the crossfire and asked the same question). Most of my articles reiterate the same thought: the “business model” built on a questionable evidence and incentive to pay settlements regardless of the guilt is nauseous to say the least.

Thankfully, more and more attention is being paid to the sleazy methods utilized by a handful of greedy attorneys, who inflict tremendous harm on the reputation of legal profession. Given another big problem with copyright trolling — inequality of arms — it is especially nice to see that IT professionals and copyright attorneys loudly voice their concerns.

In my opinion, if you file a motion to quash, referencing this article can bolster your position.

wordpress counter


15 responses to ‘An excellent paper: “Copyright Infringement in Cyberspace – Decoding Strict Liability”

  1. Yes I’m going to add to the motion templates. Just have to find some free time. 🙂 I guess it time again for me to act like a “Wanna be” lawyer. LOL!

    DieTrollDie 🙂

    • Page 99 of the Journal states:

      This Journal may be reproduced without the express permission of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia, as long as it is reproduced in its entirety, including the Bar Association of District of Columbia name and logo.

      • Yes, another way is to ask the author directly – I can’t imagine she wouldn’t allow attaching her article to a motion. As for judges – who knows… judges are different, some may not read, but still make a mental note that the attached article is not from a random Internet forum, but from a Bar magazine….

        • I tried contacting her on her web-site but I can’t read her Captcha code in order to send the note, my wife. Cant understand the code either.
          I really hate to send the 100 page report from the journal of the Bar association. Judge might get mad at how many pages I send. Can anyone read that or ask her

        • I tried contacting her on her web-site but I can’t read her Captcha code in order to send the note, my wife. Cant understand the code either.
          I really hate to send the 100 page report from the journal of the Bar association. Judge might get mad at how many pages I send. Can anyone read that or ask her Permission.

      • The main point of all this copywrong crap is it’s no longer needed in the 21st century given our new methods of information exchange.

        The copywrong laws are defunct and no longer applicable.
        The copywrong cartel is attempting to hold back Human development and society simply because they refuse to accept the ease of exchange of information we now have available to us Worldwide.

        Who would EVER have predicted that the main Luddites of the early 21st Century was the so-called “content industry” simply because they don’t like their comfortable profit-margins threatened?

        I never saw it coming – and neither did they, apparently. It’s just such a pity they were rich enough to buy so many politicians in the USA to help them retain their defunct business model rather than modernise with the rest of the World.

    • If you already have a motion on file, just create an addendum to the motion (use the same general format of the motion) with a short introduction/why the addendum, synopsis of the report, quote a part of it that is highly relevant to your motion, and attach the full report. Mail it out just like the original motion – Court and Troll.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

  2. “[T]he Copyright Act does not expressly render anyone liable for infringement committed by another (in contrast to the Patent Act).”22 An account holder cannot be held liable simply by the fact that her Internet access was identified in connection with the alleged infringing download. This being so, where a Doe defendant had neither intent nor knowledge of the passage of the infringing material, through her Internet access, no liability can attach to her merely as the account holder of such Internet access23. ”

    Beautiful. This statement is in direct opposition the recent declarations filed by trolls comparing open routers to red-light violations.

  3. Hey, I recognize some of those words in your article. Don’t worry, I won’t sue you.
    Actually, I’m glad to see that something I wrote left an enough of an impression on you to repeat. 🙂

    • Her website’s legal notice and privacy statement says ( This firm is entitled to copyright protection of the information imparted on this website, which you may download for your personal use but may not reproduced without the firm’s permission ).
      her phone number does’ nt seem to work, so i guess we can’t use it unless we print the Journal’s version all 100 pages

      • P.S.

        If I send the whole 100 page document plus the normal motion to quash to the plantiff and the court, can I just send the regular part of the motion to the ISP or do i have to send the attachments too?

        Thanks for everything too by the way.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s