Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 286 FRD 188 - Third Degree Films v. Does 1-47

Third Degree Films v. Does 1-47’s Empirical Analysis

2012

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
November 2024
most recently cited

3 district ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1914

Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · In re EMC Corporation · In re Relafen Antitrust Litigation · Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-176 · Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. DOES 1-188

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[i]t is important to consider that while a peer directly uploads to only a small number of peers, those peers in turn upload pieces to other peers that later join the swarm. Thus, a defendant’s “generation” of peers — peers that a defendant likely directly uploaded to— helped pass on pieces of the Work to the next “generation” of active peers. For example, it is not implausible that John Doe No. 10, who apparently participated in the swarm on [a given date] shared pieces of the Work with peers that in turn, helped propagate the Work to later joining peers. Therefore, Doe No. 10 plausibly indirectly uploaded pieces of the work to, say, Doe No. 25 who participated in the swarm four days later. Indeed, it is beyond dispute that the initial seeder indirectly uploaded pieces of the Work to every peer in the swarm — no matter when they joined.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.