[jknupp]

Even if there is no relevant legal precedent, Comcast's common sense argument that the plaintiff in the case had a clear history of not using the identities of the subscribers the court compelled ISPs to release in any litigation is the kind of argument that, in a perfect world, would become the norm. However, IANAL so I have no idea how likely it is to be successfully used again.

[lrs]

I don't know, man - I'm no ally of the Plaintiffs in this case, but I don't think I buy that argument.

What Comcast characterizes as "shakedowns" are really just negotiated settlements. The fact that the claims didn't go to litigation doesn't necessarily indicate that they aren't valid; it just means that they were settled before it became necessarily to file a lawsuit.

[justinlink]

This one law firm has had cases against tens of thousands of internet users. To this date they have never served a single one.

Here's proof from Prenda itself in a court filing: "Although our records indicate that we have filed suits against individual copyright infringement defendants, our records indicate that no defendants have been served in the below-listed cases."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/83287284 (page 4 - all cases)