7 ms·

1. All written communications with RCN concerning piracy from Oct. 1, 2017 to the present. 2. Payment records to RCN from Oct. 1, 2017 to present. 3. All pers

1. All written communications with RCN concerning piracy from Oct. 1, 2017 to the present. 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?

defrost 3y ago
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.
- close04 3y ago
  > 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.
- 15457345234 3y ago
  > 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.
  - defrost 3y ago
    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.
    - 15457345234 3y ago
      > 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. But I'm just speculating.
h4ch1 3y ago
A very naive idea but why can't people just delete their data, put their drives in the washing machine and just hand over the computer and be like whoops it's broken? 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.
- graemep 3y ago
  Because that is illegal and the courts will be very sceptical about your claim that your drive just happened to break at such a convenient time.
  - h4ch1 3y ago
    not a lawyer, but how is it illegal if I do it before I am served with any sort of orders for discovery? I can just wipe my desktop, in a perfectly usable state, with some random applications installed.
    - graemep 3y ago
      It looks like it can be: "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-your-peril-preserving-electronic-evidence-during-the.html https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/delete-at-...
      - pests 3y ago
        Existence of a possible claim. Isnt that always possible, for everyone, always, for any action?
        h4ch1 3y ago
        yeah that's what I am confused about, sounds like a gray area, I don't know if me doing something I know is legal could set me up for lawsuits a year down the line so am I supposed to hoard data in the wait of being sued someday lest my data maintenance tic be used against me? If I know I am doing something illegal then yeah the case against me could be stronger, but what about people who don't

defrost 3y ago

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.

close04 3y ago
> 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.
15457345234 3y ago
> 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.
- defrost 3y ago
  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.
  - 15457345234 3y ago
    > 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. But I'm just speculating.

h4ch1 3y ago

A very naive idea but why can't people just delete their data, put their drives in the washing machine and just hand over the computer and be like whoops it's broken? 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.

graemep 3y ago
Because that is illegal and the courts will be very sceptical about your claim that your drive just happened to break at such a convenient time.
- h4ch1 3y ago
  not a lawyer, but how is it illegal if I do it before I am served with any sort of orders for discovery? I can just wipe my desktop, in a perfectly usable state, with some random applications installed.
  - graemep 3y ago
    It looks like it can be: "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-your-peril-preserving-electronic-evidence-during-the.html https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/delete-at-...
    - pests 3y ago
      Existence of a possible claim. Isnt that always possible, for everyone, always, for any action?
      - h4ch1 3y ago
        yeah that's what I am confused about, sounds like a gray area, I don't know if me doing something I know is legal could set me up for lawsuits a year down the line so am I supposed to hoard data in the wait of being sued someday lest my data maintenance tic be used against me? If I know I am doing something illegal then yeah the case against me could be stronger, but what about people who don't