In this copyright infringement case filed in the US District Court District of Nevada, the defendants were identified -- beyond their mere IP address -- for alleged unauthorized distribution of 728 sound recordings over a P2P network in September 2005. Notably, the complaint (Exhibit A) only lists one sound-recording per plaintiff (record label), with the corresponding "SR #" (i.e., copyright registration), instead of each of the alleged 728 infringements.
Two things are of interest to OTCS. First, the complaint explains to the court in two paragraphs the technology behind P2P and IP addresses. Second, why the 2+ year delay in filing suit? Were the parties negotiating, or were they just asleep at the wheel?
[Elektra Entertainment Group Inc. et al v. Jaqueline Meredith Walton; 2:07-cv-01557-RCJ-GWF; filed 11/21/2007]
Here is a nearly identical complaint, filed in the District of Massachusetts, for the alleged infringement of 300+ sound recordings in November 2005 over the Kazaa P2P network. Again, the plaintiffs (record labels) spend a mere two paragraphs on P2P/IP addresses, waited 2+ years to file suit (who uses Kazaa anymore?), and only listed 5 sound recordings (Exhibit A, with corresponding copyright registrations) instead of each of the alleged 300+ infringements.
[Virgin Records America, Inc. et al v. Dobson; 1:07-cv-12176-NG; filed 11/21/07]