Film Companies Seek 'Torrenting History' Related to Redditor
torrentfreak.com
torrentfreak.com
Ok, sure. But wouldn't admitting to downloading movies off BitTorrent open them up to legal action from other parties? In other words, if you downloaded a Sony movie, couldn't they bring a case?
2. Payment records to RCN from Oct. 1, 2017 to present.
3. All personal computing records pertaining to usage of BitTorrent from Oct. 1, 2017 to the present.
4. All social media account usernames used including for Reddit, Twitter and Facebook January 1, 2016 to present.
5. All Reddit posts and messages from Jan. 1, 2016 to the present
6. Records of all movie piracy websites (including but not limited to YTS, 1337x, RARBG, Torrent Galaxy, The PirateBay) that were used at your Internet service.
---
How do they expect anyone to say yes to those requests? They don't have power of discovery over some person not directly involved in their lawsuit, so are they just hoping that this person not only will comply but actually has any of this data? It seems Mr. S is stonewalling them and I'm not sure what they can do about it, even with a subpoena.
Any lawyers want to answer what the recourse is for someone who is just ignoring your requests?
That said I'm inclined to believe that "Person S", the redditor, is not their target.
I'm inclined to think that RCN is the target, with deeper pockets, and they intend to prove that RCN facilitated many subscribers by "allowing" torrenting.
The merits of that case aside, the strategy would be to scare the pants off of RCN and perhaps get them to settle for fear that some subscribers or many will fold and deliver up correspondence that shows repeated warnings about torrenting with no actual action by RCN taken.
This is about US clients and the US ISP company RCN.
Australia has this already solved, there was a High Court case Hollywood et al Vs. IINET that came down solidly on the side of the ISP companu not having to monitor their subscribers torrenting activity, nor having to pass on customer personal data in response to requests based on IP addresses and ISP logs.
I think they're looking to set a precedent on leveraging a random person to obtain evidence usable against a big target. Once any customer can be leveraged against the ISP, the ISP will do the heavy lifting of of the hammer against such customers.
Uh, if you ignore a legally issued subpoena you end up with an arrest warrant and are usually quite promptly arrested. If that subpoena obliges you to hand over equipment and records those records and equipment are forcibly seized in the process.
Sorry but 'the law has no teeth' isn't how things work. Subpoenas are, in fact, enforced. Routinely. That's what enables the justice system to work.
I'm also pretty sure they want this 'person S' quite badly indeed and considering they want all their socials since Jan 1 2016 I'd imagine piracy is just the start of what they're looking for.
Reddit wasn’t willing to go along with the request, at least not in full. The company objected, arguing that handing over the requested information would violate its users’ right to anonymous speech. Reddit later responded similarly to a second and third subpoena request.
As for Mr S. he can be compelled to respond to the subpoena for:
1. All written communications with RCN concerning piracy from Oct. 1, 2017 to the present.
> I'm also pretty sure they want this 'person S' quite badly indeed
To leverage them, quite possibly for immunity should they be able to make anything stick aside from an elaborate online fantasy life cosplaying as a pirate .. or not .. maybe. Absolutely.
I'd still argue that the main target here is bigger fish with deeper pockets - scare an ISP out of being casual wrt pirating, send a message to more ISP's, etc.
Based on what's been requested I'd say that this has almost nothing to do with RCN and is in fact almost entirely about this Mr. S, based on that person's social media account usage history being requested.
That, to me, suggests they know that this person isn't merely doing 'a bit of torrenting' but is perhaps part of (or even, orchestrating) some organised piracy scheme. Or more.
But I'm just speculating.
This seems unlikely given they have an IP address and an ISP provider.
It's hard imagine that anyone involved in organised piracy schemes is actually using a raw ISP address rather than a logless VPN that laughs at warrents and subpoenas.
It's hard imagine that anyone involved in organised piracy schemes is actually using Piratebay with a "leads right back to them" address that shows up on https://iknowwhatyoudownload.com/en/peer/ and other such tools that scrape public trackers.
Why do you think they've requested this person's - almost - complete history of social media account usage since Jan 1 2016?
ie. Evidenced of ISP knowledge and lack of follow through.
Still intriguing
But now that I see that RCN was acquired Nov 2020 (a pandemic acquisition) I'm back to agreeing that it's about RCN, not this Mr. S.
Maybe once you've read the article, you can run over to Reddit and tell them that.
"While Reddit declined to comply with recent subpoenas for subscriber information"
"Reddit wasn’t willing to go along with the request, at least not in full. The company objected, arguing that handing over the requested information would violate its users’ right to anonymous speech. Reddit later responded similarly to a second and third subpoena request."
If ever I'm the subject of a lawsuit that'd require me to turn in my computer, I'd scrub it to oblivion at the slightest intimation of what's happening.
"a number of courts have issued rulings imposing a duty to preserve before litigation begins if a party knows of the existence of a potential claim and can identify relevant evidence."
https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/delete-at-...
If I know I am doing something illegal then yeah the case against me could be stronger, but what about people who don't
https://www.politico.eu/article/wiped-phone-puts-von-der-ley...
'So if I was being sued, I'd destroy evidence.' is a great way for the court to give you the hardest of times, and potentially jail time.
I think the biggest change is that people at the bottom have moved on to iptv or paying for shared Plex accounts instead of doing the downloading themselves. The chain is still dependent on torrenting though.
edit: looking at Nintendo's complaint against Yuzu, it doesn't mention bittorrent or explain how they arrived at that number.
I understand torrenting offers one easy and convenient search, no ads, can download in advance of a journey, no country lock, no expiring downloads, no series disappearing off Netflix half way through watching.
Given the price and quality of paid services torrenting is coming back fast
The execs don't understand, if a kid cannot torrent a movie the kid cannot afford to buy it. Either way they don't make money.
Solution is very easy and Steam, early Netflix proved it.
Make your service affordable and convenient and you will win people with money.
Make your service expensive and inconvenient and people with money will be pushed to piracy cuz its less hustle and cost only time.