3 ms·

I read the entire article, and I think this case boils down to Genshin needs a twitter account's identity so a judge can rule on the case. Twitter says they n

I read the entire article, and I think this case boils down to Genshin needs a twitter account's identity so a judge can rule on the case. Twitter says they need a judge to rule on the case before they hand over the details. How is this a contentious issue? Surely there's a standard protocol here. I feel like I must be missing something.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
Genshin sent Twitter a subpoena that wasn't issued by a judge. Twitter says they need a judge to issue it. Genshin doesn't like that, because convincing a judge is more work than getting a rubber stamp from a court clerk, and they want to keep issuing future subpoenas without needing a judge to sign off on them.
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  So Genshin is trying to overturn centuries of US precedent? I don't see why they think that has any chance of success.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Congress passed a law implying that Genshin could do it, the question is if that law is constitutional.
    - boomboomsubban 3y ago
      The law being the DMCA? Nobody else tried in the last thirty years? Possible, just seems bizarre. edit just saw your other post. It is just bizarre, I'm over thinking it.
      - greenyoda 3y ago
        Apparently, this is the typical procedure for subpoenas, and not specific to the DMCA. According to Wikipedia: "Subpoenas are usually issued by the clerk of the court in the name of the judge presiding over the case. Additionally, court rules may permit lawyers to issue subpoenas themselves in their capacity as officers of the court." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena#United_States
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        So a subpoena is just a request to appear or produce something. The requirements for it depend on what kind of something it is. Also, in many cases the person who receives the subpoena is the person who doesn't want to do it, and just because it was issued doesn't mean they can't still go to the court and object to it. The problem here is that the party with both the incentive and the information necessary to object to it isn't Twitter, even though the subpoena was sent to them. So they're kind of saying "we object to this because we aren't in a position to know if we should object to this and we shouldn't be put in that position."

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

Genshin sent Twitter a subpoena that wasn't issued by a judge. Twitter says they need a judge to issue it. Genshin doesn't like that, because convincing a judge is more work than getting a rubber stamp from a court clerk, and they want to keep issuing future subpoenas without needing a judge to sign off on them.

boomboomsubban 3y ago
So Genshin is trying to overturn centuries of US precedent? I don't see why they think that has any chance of success.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Congress passed a law implying that Genshin could do it, the question is if that law is constitutional.
  - boomboomsubban 3y ago
    The law being the DMCA? Nobody else tried in the last thirty years? Possible, just seems bizarre. edit just saw your other post. It is just bizarre, I'm over thinking it.
    - greenyoda 3y ago
      Apparently, this is the typical procedure for subpoenas, and not specific to the DMCA. According to Wikipedia: "Subpoenas are usually issued by the clerk of the court in the name of the judge presiding over the case. Additionally, court rules may permit lawyers to issue subpoenas themselves in their capacity as officers of the court." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena#United_States
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        So a subpoena is just a request to appear or produce something. The requirements for it depend on what kind of something it is. Also, in many cases the person who receives the subpoena is the person who doesn't want to do it, and just because it was issued doesn't mean they can't still go to the court and object to it. The problem here is that the party with both the incentive and the information necessary to object to it isn't Twitter, even though the subpoena was sent to them. So they're kind of saying "we object to this because we aren't in a position to know if we should object to this and we shouldn't be put in that position."