5 ms·

I'd like to know the law company Twitch is contracting out of because holy shit is Twitch getting ripped off here. Sueing people you don't even know the identit

I'd like to know the law company Twitch is contracting out of because holy shit is Twitch getting ripped off here. Sueing people you don't even know the identities of has to be the easiest way of racking up legal fees I have ever seen

whymauri 7y ago
Could it be a pre-emptive political move to avoid scrutiny from governments where the content that was streamed (Christchurch shooting, some illegal pornography) is illegal? Also, I'm pretty sure they know some of the perpetrators but are probably still building a case. A few years ago they pinpointed the heads of a viewbotting operation and successfully took legal action. I could see them finding a few people to make an example out of, honestly.
- tomatotomato37 7y ago
  I could see Twitch's thinking be to only catch a few people to make an example of, but in similar style cases with media companies and pirating the paperwork already has the targets name on it; the use of just placeholders imply to me that the lawyers are going to intentionally drag the case out while telling Twitch they are trying to find the "perfect target" to make an example of.
  - whymauri 7y ago
    That makes a lot of sense, this is an interesting perspective.
  - morpheuskafka 7y ago
    It may be less of finding an example defendant as just providing an example that they are doing something if they're accused of not doing enough later. I expect the case will quickly settle.
- axylw 7y ago
  Is streaming the Christchurch shooting illegal in the US, where Twitch is based?
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  Wouldn't just banning them and turning information over to the local police be the saner and cheaper move then? The fact is even if traced it would end in 97% of cases with "(Home country)! You can't do shit!" While covering their asses by cooperating.
CydeWeys 7y ago
This may be necessary to determine the identities of the actual people they want to sue, like to enable a subpoena to the ISPs in question.
- ISL 7y ago
  Agreed. There are a lot of actions that courts can take that companies cannot. (and court-imposed fines have a lot of teeth)
tptacek 7y ago
That'd be Amazon, their parent company, one of (along with the other FAANG companies) the savviest consumers of legal services in the world.
- idlewords 7y ago
  Why the N in FAANG? Why isn't it FAAMG? I can't get a reasonable answer to this.
  - thrower123 7y ago
    Isn't the N Netflix? I think it's just Bay Area/Silicon Valley companies, while Microsoft is up north in Washington.
    - idlewords 7y ago
      Yeah, N is netflix, but in this context what's being referred to is the Big 5 tech companies, which should be Google|Alphabet/Amazon/Microsoft/Facebook/Apple. I think the original FAANG formulation had to do with fastest-growing stocks and now it's infected the discourse about the tech oligopoly. Other theories welcome.
      - nostrademons 7y ago
        Yeah, I think it has to do with stock price appreciation. Since 2009, Google has grown 7x, Apple 9x, FB was non-public but a rough private market valuation gives about 9x, Amazon 32X, and Netflix 70X. MSFT has grown 5x, but 2x of that is since 2017 and virtually all of it since 2015 (while FB started its rally in 2013 and the rest in 2009), so it's been left out of the discourse. Personally, I'm a fan of the acronym MAGA for the top tech companies, because that's the initials of the largest 4 (Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Apple) and they are Making America Great Again, with multiple levels of irony that your personal political views and historical knowledge can help you unpack.
      - kevinmchugh 7y ago
        You've also pointed out that FAANG is outdated, so I'm switching to FAAAM
sudhirj 7y ago
They’d want to keep things anonymous even if they know the identities of the streamers, which they can probably guess from emails and IP logs. If they name names the narrative changes to “website owned by worlds biggest company trying to put 15 year olds in jail for having fun”.
cheschire 7y ago
I don’t know very much about the intricacies of this but wouldn’t it be possible to get a judge to decide this is worth a warrant which could then be used to deanonymize?
gnicholas 7y ago
Another commenter said the legal filings allege trademark violations. If this is the case, the suit may be an example of "policing" a trademark, which involves going after all trademark violators in order to maintain the legal right to enforce the trademark. If you fail to adequately police a mark, you can lose the ability to enforce it. Disclaimer: although I am a former lawyer, I did not specialize in trademark law.
madrox 7y ago
One has to sue John Doe in situations like this to avoid the statute of limitations expiring.

whymauri 7y ago

Could it be a pre-emptive political move to avoid scrutiny from governments where the content that was streamed (Christchurch shooting, some illegal pornography) is illegal? Also, I'm pretty sure they know some of the perpetrators but are probably still building a case. A few years ago they pinpointed the heads of a viewbotting operation and successfully took legal action. I could see them finding a few people to make an example out of, honestly.

tomatotomato37 7y ago
I could see Twitch's thinking be to only catch a few people to make an example of, but in similar style cases with media companies and pirating the paperwork already has the targets name on it; the use of just placeholders imply to me that the lawyers are going to intentionally drag the case out while telling Twitch they are trying to find the "perfect target" to make an example of.
- whymauri 7y ago
  That makes a lot of sense, this is an interesting perspective.
- morpheuskafka 7y ago
  It may be less of finding an example defendant as just providing an example that they are doing something if they're accused of not doing enough later. I expect the case will quickly settle.
axylw 7y ago
Is streaming the Christchurch shooting illegal in the US, where Twitch is based?
Nasrudith 7y ago
Wouldn't just banning them and turning information over to the local police be the saner and cheaper move then? The fact is even if traced it would end in 97% of cases with "(Home country)! You can't do shit!" While covering their asses by cooperating.

CydeWeys 7y ago

This may be necessary to determine the identities of the actual people they want to sue, like to enable a subpoena to the ISPs in question.

ISL 7y ago
Agreed. There are a lot of actions that courts can take that companies cannot. (and court-imposed fines have a lot of teeth)

tptacek 7y ago

That'd be Amazon, their parent company, one of (along with the other FAANG companies) the savviest consumers of legal services in the world.

idlewords 7y ago
Why the N in FAANG? Why isn't it FAAMG? I can't get a reasonable answer to this.
- thrower123 7y ago
  Isn't the N Netflix? I think it's just Bay Area/Silicon Valley companies, while Microsoft is up north in Washington.
  - idlewords 7y ago
    Yeah, N is netflix, but in this context what's being referred to is the Big 5 tech companies, which should be Google|Alphabet/Amazon/Microsoft/Facebook/Apple. I think the original FAANG formulation had to do with fastest-growing stocks and now it's infected the discourse about the tech oligopoly. Other theories welcome.
    - nostrademons 7y ago
      Yeah, I think it has to do with stock price appreciation. Since 2009, Google has grown 7x, Apple 9x, FB was non-public but a rough private market valuation gives about 9x, Amazon 32X, and Netflix 70X. MSFT has grown 5x, but 2x of that is since 2017 and virtually all of it since 2015 (while FB started its rally in 2013 and the rest in 2009), so it's been left out of the discourse. Personally, I'm a fan of the acronym MAGA for the top tech companies, because that's the initials of the largest 4 (Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Apple) and they are Making America Great Again, with multiple levels of irony that your personal political views and historical knowledge can help you unpack.
    - kevinmchugh 7y ago
      You've also pointed out that FAANG is outdated, so I'm switching to FAAAM

sudhirj 7y ago

They’d want to keep things anonymous even if they know the identities of the streamers, which they can probably guess from emails and IP logs. If they name names the narrative changes to “website owned by worlds biggest company trying to put 15 year olds in jail for having fun”.

cheschire 7y ago

I don’t know very much about the intricacies of this but wouldn’t it be possible to get a judge to decide this is worth a warrant which could then be used to deanonymize?

gnicholas 7y ago

Another commenter said the legal filings allege trademark violations. If this is the case, the suit may be an example of "policing" a trademark, which involves going after all trademark violators in order to maintain the legal right to enforce the trademark. If you fail to adequately police a mark, you can lose the ability to enforce it. Disclaimer: although I am a former lawyer, I did not specialize in trademark law.

madrox 7y ago

One has to sue John Doe in situations like this to avoid the statute of limitations expiring.