Exert more imaginary pressure in the hope that they run scared and fold.
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'm inclined to beleive that "Person S", the redditor, is not their target.
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.
> Exert more imaginary pressure in the hope that they run scared and fold.
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, reportedly, did not comply with three subpoena's in a row:
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.
It helps to have lawyers object to subpoenas.
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.
etc. by truthfully (?) stating that he no longer has these records.
> 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.
> I'd still argue that the main target here is bigger fish with deeper pockets
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.
> 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.
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.
They're looking for any and all publicly declared interactions between this person and their ISP that indicate their ISP had knowledge of them using public trackers, warned them against using public tracking torrents, and did nothing when they continued to use them.
ie. Evidenced of ISP knowledge and lack of follow through.
> 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.
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."
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.