Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, without Plaintiff s authorization, intentionally downloaded a torrent file particular to Plaintiff s Video, purposefully loaded the torrent file into the BitTorrent Protocol, entered a BitTorrent swarm particular to Plaintiff s Video, and reproduced and distributed the Video to numerous other peers in the swarm.I'm only familiar with this Swarm:
Actually, the question of whether you can join all members of "the swarm" in a single complaint is an interesting one:
Therefore, aside from downloading the same Video using BitTorrent protocol, there is nothing that connects a1l of the Doe Defendants to each other. See Hard Drive Prods., lnc., 809 F. Supp.2d at 1 163 ("The bare fact that Doe clicked on a command to participate in the BitTorrent protocol does not mean that they were part of the downloading by unknown hundreds or thousands of individuals across the country or across the world'). This lack of connectivity is evidenced by the range of dates over which the Does in this case downloaded the Video - a period of six weeks, from December 13, 201 1 until January 26, 2012. (DE 1-3. Further, Plaintiff has not pled that any individual Doe copied or uploaded a piece from any other individual Doe. . . Therefore, the Court cannot accept Plaintiff's arguments that Defendants' actions constitute the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.So, although courts are divided, at least in the SD FL being part of a BitTorrent "swarm" does not mean you can join every swarm member.
(Michael Caine can rest easy.)