PassThePopcorn lawsuit dismissed, but sanctions dispute remains
Copyright claims against six private torrent trackers have been dropped, while a federal court retains a sanctions matter over the plaintiff’s identity.
By Renata Fuchs · Policy Reporter
· 3 min read
The PassThePopcorn lawsuit dismissed update ends the copyright claims against the private torrent tracker and five other defendants, but it does not end the dispute over who filed the case. The person using the name Matthew Schneider voluntarily dismissed the claims, while Judge Andrea R. Wood retained jurisdiction over a pending motion for a rule to show cause, according to TorrentFreak.
The suit had accused six private trackers of infringing films allegedly made by Schneider. The defendants included PassThePopcorn, BroadcasTheNet and HDBits. The action had sought to identify tracker operators through Cloudflare, according to Ars Technica.
The case changed course after a Canadian filmmaker named Matthew Schneider, whose works were cited in the complaint, submitted a sworn declaration saying he had no involvement in the litigation. The plaintiff responded that he was another Matthew Schneider, a filmmaker based in the United Kingdom, and said he had separately made films with the same titles: Split: A Film Anthology, Do Us Part, and Orlando Gloom, Always the Same.
At a telephone hearing, the plaintiff confirmed that Matthew Schneider was his legal name and said he lived in London, TorrentFreak reported from its hearing notes. The court has not resolved the competing accounts of his identity.
What remains in the PassThePopcorn lawsuit?
The copyright allegations are dismissed. The remaining matter is the defendants’ effort to seek sanctions through the pending rule-to-show-cause process, which Judge Wood kept before the court despite the voluntary dismissal.
Defense attorney Erin Russell, representing one defendant identified as Doe 1, said the defendants still planned to pursue sanctions. Russell said identifying the plaintiff matters both to avoid imposing a judgment on the wrong person and to make any sanctions award collectible.
Russell also offered a possible motive for the suit, but it remains an unsupported defense theory rather than a court finding. She said the email address used for the filings appeared connected to someone familiar with private trackers who was allegedly blacklisted after selling or trading invitations. Russell suggested that person may have acted out of ill will toward the services. No evidence supporting that account had been filed, TorrentFreak reported.
The plaintiff had previously provided film metadata and promised to submit a copy of his version of Do Us Part, as well as a sworn affidavit. Judge Wood anticipated a later video hearing involving the plaintiff and two Canadian declarants. A status hearing was set for October 2.
The case illustrates a practical limit in litigation intended to unmask online operators: once the filing party’s own identity is contested, the court must address that threshold issue before it can reliably direct sanctions at an individual. Readers can review TorrentFreak’s hearing report and dismissal update.
This story draws on original reporting from Ars Technica.
