On July 2nd, the Judge presiding over the Achte/Neute vs John Does (all 4,577 of them) denied the defense's plea to prevent combining all of these individuals into one case - otherwise known in legal terms as joinder. While it was a minor setback for the EFF, the ACLU, and other consumer activists fighting for the rights of the accused, it did few favors for the US Copyright Group either. Instead, the judge ordered both sides to work together to draft a letter that will be sent to the accused informing them of their legal rights and options.

This has not been a quick, nor easy, process. Already three weeks into 'working together', both sides are disagreeing on many of the legal semantics of the letter. Although the basic context of the defense's version (direct links here and here (with proposed edits) of the letter isn't too different from the US Copyright Groups, there remains serious contentions between the two sides.

In a motion filed yesterday in the Achte/Neute vs John Does (over the movie Far Cry), the plaintiffs brought their concerns about the defense's proposed letter to the court. The biggest contention seems to surround the amount of legalese - or legal talk - integrated into the letter. In fact, the defense would prefer to see little to none of it - such as the phraseology “motion to quash or vacate”.

Unless you pore over legal documents or read countless court decision, motions, opinions, etc., chances are that this language will be confusing. It easy takes many months to understand the basic structure of legal writing. Chances are a stressed lay individual who receives one of these letters won’t understand the concept of “motion to quash or vacate”. Instead, the defense wants the letter to simply say, "...block the subpoena..."

Makes sense, right? That's basically what a motion to quash or vacate means - the court is basically throwing out the subpoena, providing the defendant has a competent argument. This, however, isn't sitting well with the plaintiffs. (Read the plaintiff’s motion here).

"As with other arguments presented by Amici, Amici are advocating that the Defendants, particularly any Defendants acting pro se, be given a different, more lenient standard for filing documents in this case. That should not be permitted. Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure just like represented litigants."