So I got a subpoena from Comcast... Now I have some questions for you guys.

[brucebruce]

Oh man, I got one these letters recently and I'm very very worried.  

It's been a couple years since the meat of this discussion so can we open this one up again and can someone please summarize the latest with this problem?  

I'd also love to hear about peoples' experiences, especially from some of the OPs.

TIA

[Moe]

Not much has really changed.

An agent representing the rights holder spotted your IP address in the swarm and sent the letter to the owner of the address - your ISP. Your ISP forwarded it to you.

As long as you don't respond, the rights holder has no idea who you are.

If you don't want any more of those letters, start using a VPN.

[sillySilk]

Hi, all.  I'm new here but I'm a certified paralegal with several years of civil litigation experience.  I also happen to be in the telecommunications industry now (and was before I started a legal career) and we manage broadband accounts for extended stay multi-unit properties so I regularly deal with the warning letters from the the ISP on behalf of the copyright holders as they go to us, not the guests at these properties and we also work hand in hand with the ISP.  So, yeah, on both fronts, I bring unique insights to the table.

First, I'm going to clear some things up as far as civil procedure is concerned:

Why not? Comcast is the one being named in court because they are ones who have my identifying information. The paperwork has a judge's name on it and the name of the attorney who filed the motion.

a subpoena is an official notice to appear before an official. since comcast is not an official, they cannot serve you a subpoena.

lemme explain what's going on...

No, let me explain what's going on here:

First, a subpoena, is not necessarily a summons to appear before an official.  Subpoenas are issued for the purpose of compelling witnesses to appear and provide evidence and testimony.  Yes, they are used to call witnesses during a trial but well before that ever happens they are used to compel witnesses to testify and provide evidence at a deposition.

Depositions are part of the discovery process and do not involve appearing before an official.  During a deposition, the subpoenaed individual is compelled to provide accurate testimony to the attorneys that are questioning them on both sides.  This occurs at a predetermined location agreed to by the opposing counsels and is usually at the office of either the plaintiff or defendant's attorneys.  This has nothing to do with a trial at this point before a court (and most likely never will) and is not done before any officials.

In this case, we have what's called a "fishing expedition" because the there is no named defendant.  The case is simply Malibu Media v. John Does 1 - 1000 or whatever.  That's why they want this information from Comcast, so they can figure out who they need to go after.

As far as who can serve a subpoena, it is incumbent upon the party that filed the subpoena to designate a disinterested third-party to serve a subpoena according to the rules of service as outlined in the particular jurisdiction's rules of civil procedure (in this case, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as this is a federal case).

Title II, Rule 4, Section ( c ), Subsections 2 & 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure State that Service of Process must be made accordingly:

(2) By Whom. Any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party may serve a summons and complaint.

(3) By a Marshal or Someone Specially Appointed. At the plaintiff's request, the court may order that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed by the court. The court must so order if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §1915 or as a seaman under 28 U.S.C. §1916.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_4
http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/c...cedure.pdf

And before anyone starts because I can already hear the arguments from the Internet legal experts, the same rules of procedure apply to subpoenas as they do to a summons and complaint.

Could be as simple as the media co attorney writing the subpoena himself as an officer of the court and send it to Comcast.

Uh... no.  it doesn't work that way.  All attorneys (actually, all paralegals under the supervision of attorneys) write the subpoenas.  They file them (and when I say "file," I mean literally filed.  The Clerk literally sticks it into a file) with the court, the court clerk rubber stamps it and it is up to the attorney that's filing the subpoena to serve the document according to jurisdiction's rules of civil procedure (see above).  The court has to approve a subpoena and although this is usually automatic, there is still a very specific process that needs to be adhered to under the rules of civil procedure.  An attorney can't just send a subpoena to a witness without it being filed and issued by the court and served properly.

And BTW, if you don't think rules of civil procedure matter and that they can be subverted, you're dead wrong.  The first things we look for are procedural violations by the plaintiff (I worked civil defense) in order to object and file motions for and dismissal.  The reason for this is very simple: a specific set of rules for procedure insures that all parties have an equal legal footing before the court.

Based on the information provided in this thread by the OP, it appears that Comcast has simply received a subpoena requesting that information. Not once did the OP suggest that the documentation they received stated that Comcast would be providing that information to Malibu Media.  Considering the highly sensitive, personal and private nature of that information, it is highly unlikely that they would comply with a subpoena demanding such information without fighting the plaintiff in court over it.  

OP, simply because you are an interested party, Comcast is alerting you to the fact that they were subpoenaed for information that pertains directly to you.  That's it... don't look too much into it.  This is a courtesy letter from Comcast (unless they've given you other instructions that you haven't shared with us). It is in Comcast's best interest to stand up against well-known trolls such as Malibu Media who attempt to exploit the judicial system.

Comcast would require a court order before releasing any of that information to Malibu Media.  A court order for the release of such information would only be issued if Comcast couldn't present a compelling argument to the court as to why that information shouldn't be released and I think that outcome is very unlikely.  

[As an aside, I'd also like to point out that the information that Malibu Media wants is proprietary, i.e., they are looking to violate the IP rights of Comcast while claiming to defend their own.]

Furthering my point on this, I did a little research and lo and behold, Comcast not only told these assclowns to pound sand, they also made fun of them in the process.

Also, Comcast, the ISP, is NOT a defendant in this case.  Believe it or not, they are actually standing up for you as their subscriber.  Why?  Money.  Unlike the multi-billion dollar deals that are at stake they with the mainstream content providers (studios, networks, etc.) when they send warning letters on the content provider's behalf because you downloaded an episode of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, they have no vested interest in protecting the IP of porn producers who they either have limited or no contracts with (I'm going to guess they have no contracts with Malibu Media).  On the other hand, they DO have a vested interest in protecting YOU as a subscriber from these shady motherfuckers.

Here's the article, but what's an even better read is the response letter that Comcast's attorneys sent Malibu Media's attorneys and it explains very specifically why they are telling Malibu Media to go fuck themselves.

Read the letter, here.

a subpoena is an official notice to appear before an official. since comcast is not an official, they cannot serve you a subpoena.

Is no one here literate? Comprehend this: Comcast sent me a notice that THEY [comcast] are being subpoenaed BY Malibu Media LCC for identifying information pertaining to my account.

I never said that comcast was subpoenaing me.

Uh... that's exactly what you said and you weren't ambiguous at all.

I got a subpoena from comcast today on behalf of Malibu Media LLC for torrenting copywritten material.

In the title of the thread: So I got a subpoena from Comcast...

"I got a subpoena today from comcast on behalf of Malbu Media LLC," implies that YOU were served with a subpoena.  Don't get pissed at us because of how poorly you worded this, although, Comcast can't serve you a subpoena on another party's behalf, trying to navigate through your comments and determine your intent is a little difficult.  You don't seem like a complete idiot, in fact you seem like you could be quite literate, yourself, but you're just being lazy.  If you want people to help you, perhaps you should make yourself as clear as possible.  Something like this would have explained the situation better:

"I received a letter in the mail today from Comcast informing me that they had been subpoenaed by Malibu Media for downloading copyrighted material and that Comcast has concluded that the identifying information is associated with my account."

^^^See how clear and concise that was?  Perhaps you should focus on expressing yourself instead of typing with one hand as this seems to be what's gotten you into this predicament in the first place.  Was that a snarky low-blow (said the midget in the circus porn)?  Perhaps, but you kind of had it coming (like with the circus porn).



Obviously, I'm just busting your chops but take into consideration how your audience might perceive a post before you post it and try to be as clear as possible to avoid confusion.  Also, when you're asking for help and you question the intelligence of the people who are looking to help you by questioning if they are literate or not, it doesn't make people more inclined to want to provide that help.  Personally, the only reason I contributed was to help others in the future as there is a crapload of confusion over these issues, obviously.

I'm new here but not new to P2P sites. Previous Emule user...too many viruses caused me to switch.

So totally impressed! I think I just drooled because NO ONE...EVER....shares this much information nor takes the time! You are amazing! LOL...We've received this silly letter from our ISP and the funniest thing is, the day they "claim" the abuse, we were:
1. out of town.
2. with both of our kids (11 & 2 years old)
3. all internet abuse (if any) was done at site of where we were staying
4. lastly, the item they "claim" we "borrowed for an unlimited amount of time" was material we already had...PURCHASED....LOL....

I almost pee'd myself laughing thinking, how stupid do they think we are.

That being said, anyone suggest any "VPN" or "Seedblock" and TV-Tastic, are these apps/software successful? Any input would be greatly appreciated....

[Maximux]

you can also use a seedbox to hide whatever you d/ling and that included your ISP and anyone..

since I have a seedbox from seedboxes.cc I have not received any warnings since months now and before that I was getting a few every months so I strongly suggest to get one..

Maximux

[oppdeez]

Not much has really changed.

An agent representing the rights holder spotted your IP address in the swarm and sent the letter to the owner of the address - your ISP.  Your ISP forwarded it to you.

As long as you don't respond, the rights holder has no idea who you are.

If you don't want any more of those letters, start using a VPN.

Agreed, VPN is the way to go.  Also, drop comcast.  I had the letters from comcast and switched to WOW. Zero fucks given by wow.

[xbt]

I got a subpoena from comcast today on behalf of Malibu Media LLC for torrenting copywritten material. The only place I ever download from is pirate bay and I always run PeerBlock 24/7. So now I have a few questions and I'm hoping some of you will have answers. Sorry if this isn't the proper place to post this.

1) How did they track me when I was running PeerBlock?

2) Is it safe to download other torrents or is my ISP watching me now?

3) Has Malibu Media gone after any of you? If so, what happened? What should I expect?

4) They can't prove that I did it, right? All they can prove is that "someone" at my IP address did it. So how do they even have a case against me?

5) Do I need to get a lawyer?

peerblock is not enough. you need VPN to be hidden.
your ISP was watching you already
Malibu Media is just another player in the MAFIAA
True you can take it to court, but if you had to go to court that is bad news, the courts are biased against honest pirates.
you may need a lawyer if they are fining you a lot. But if they never take it to court then you won't
is the internet under your name? If so you should not have put it under your name. cancel internet now and sign up with another company under a false name and pay a deposit to not give ssn.

---

Hi, all.  I'm new here but I'm a certified paralegal with several years of civil litigation experience.  I also happen to be in the telecommunications industry now (and was before I started a legal career) and we manage broadband accounts for extended stay multi-unit properties so I regularly deal with the warning letters from the the ISP on behalf of the copyright holders as they go to us, not the guests at these properties and we also work hand in hand with the ISP.  So, yeah, on both fronts, I bring unique insights to the table.

First, I'm going to clear some things up as far as civil procedure is concerned:

Why not? Comcast is the one being named in court because they are ones who have my identifying information. The paperwork has a judge's name on it and the name of the attorney who filed the motion.

a subpoena is an official notice to appear before an official. since comcast is not an official, they cannot serve you a subpoena.

lemme explain what's going on...

No, let me explain what's going on here:

First, a subpoena, is not necessarily a summons to appear before an official.  Subpoenas are issued for the purpose of compelling witnesses to appear and provide evidence and testimony.  Yes, they are used to call witnesses during a trial but well before that ever happens they are used to compel witnesses to testify and provide evidence at a deposition.

Depositions are part of the discovery process and do not involve appearing before an official.  During a deposition, the subpoenaed individual is compelled to provide accurate testimony to the attorneys that are questioning them on both sides.  This occurs at a predetermined location agreed to by the opposing counsels and is usually at the office of either the plaintiff or defendant's attorneys.  This has nothing to do with a trial at this point before a court (and most likely never will) and is not done before any officials.

In this case, we have what's called a "fishing expedition" because the there is no named defendant.  The case is simply Malibu Media v. John Does 1 - 1000 or whatever.  That's why they want this information from Comcast, so they can figure out who they need to go after.

As far as who can serve a subpoena, it is incumbent upon the party that filed the subpoena to designate a disinterested third-party to serve a subpoena according to the rules of service as outlined in the particular jurisdiction's rules of civil procedure (in this case, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as this is a federal case).

Title II, Rule 4, Section ( c ), Subsections 2 & 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure State that Service of Process must be made accordingly:

(2) By Whom. Any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party may serve a summons and complaint.

(3) By a Marshal or Someone Specially Appointed. At the plaintiff's request, the court may order that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed by the court. The court must so order if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §1915 or as a seaman under 28 U.S.C. §1916.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_4
http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/c...cedure.pdf

And before anyone starts because I can already hear the arguments from the Internet legal experts, the same rules of procedure apply to subpoenas as they do to a summons and complaint.

Could be as simple as the media co attorney writing the subpoena himself as an officer of the court and send it to Comcast.

Uh... no.  it doesn't work that way.  All attorneys (actually, all paralegals under the supervision of attorneys) write the subpoenas.  They file them (and when I say "file," I mean literally filed.  The Clerk literally sticks it into a file) with the court, the court clerk rubber stamps it and it is up to the attorney that's filing the subpoena to serve the document according to jurisdiction's rules of civil procedure (see above).  The court has to approve a subpoena and although this is usually automatic, there is still a very specific process that needs to be adhered to under the rules of civil procedure.  An attorney can't just send a subpoena to a witness without it being filed and issued by the court and served properly.

And BTW, if you don't think rules of civil procedure matter and that they can be subverted, you're dead wrong.  The first things we look for are procedural violations by the plaintiff (I worked civil defense) in order to object and file motions for and dismissal.  The reason for this is very simple: a specific set of rules for procedure insures that all parties have an equal legal footing before the court.

Based on the information provided in this thread by the OP, it appears that Comcast has simply received a subpoena requesting that information. Not once did the OP suggest that the documentation they received stated that Comcast would be providing that information to Malibu Media.  Considering the highly sensitive, personal and private nature of that information, it is highly unlikely that they would comply with a subpoena demanding such information without fighting the plaintiff in court over it.  

OP, simply because you are an interested party, Comcast is alerting you to the fact that they were subpoenaed for information that pertains directly to you.  That's it... don't look too much into it.  This is a courtesy letter from Comcast (unless they've given you other instructions that you haven't shared with us). It is in Comcast's best interest to stand up against well-known trolls such as Malibu Media who attempt to exploit the judicial system.

Comcast would require a court order before releasing any of that information to Malibu Media.  A court order for the release of such information would only be issued if Comcast couldn't present a compelling argument to the court as to why that information shouldn't be released and I think that outcome is very unlikely.  

[As an aside, I'd also like to point out that the information that Malibu Media wants is proprietary, i.e., they are looking to violate the IP rights of Comcast while claiming to defend their own.]

Furthering my point on this, I did a little research and lo and behold, Comcast not only told these assclowns to pound sand, they also made fun of them in the process.

Also, Comcast, the ISP, is NOT a defendant in this case.  Believe it or not, they are actually standing up for you as their subscriber.  Why?  Money.  Unlike the multi-billion dollar deals that are at stake they with the mainstream content providers (studios, networks, etc.) when they send warning letters on the content provider's behalf because you downloaded an episode of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, they have no vested interest in protecting the IP of porn producers who they either have limited or no contracts with (I'm going to guess they have no contracts with Malibu Media).  On the other hand, they DO have a vested interest in protecting YOU as a subscriber from these shady motherfuckers.

Here's the article, but what's an even better read is the response letter that Comcast's attorneys sent Malibu Media's attorneys and it explains very specifically why they are telling Malibu Media to go fuck themselves.

Read the letter, here.

a subpoena is an official notice to appear before an official. since comcast is not an official, they cannot serve you a subpoena.

Is no one here literate? Comprehend this: Comcast sent me a notice that THEY [comcast] are being subpoenaed BY Malibu Media LCC for identifying information pertaining to my account.

I never said that comcast was subpoenaing me.

Uh... that's exactly what you said and you weren't ambiguous at all.

I got a subpoena from comcast today on behalf of Malibu Media LLC for torrenting copywritten material.

In the title of the thread: So I got a subpoena from Comcast...

"I got a subpoena today from comcast on behalf of Malbu Media LLC," implies that YOU were served with a subpoena.  Don't get pissed at us because of how poorly you worded this, although, Comcast can't serve you a subpoena on another party's behalf, trying to navigate through your comments and determine your intent is a little difficult.  You don't seem like a complete idiot, in fact you seem like you could be quite literate, yourself, but you're just being lazy.  If you want people to help you, perhaps you should make yourself as clear as possible.  Something like this would have explained the situation better:

"I received a letter in the mail today from Comcast informing me that they had been subpoenaed by Malibu Media for downloading copyrighted material and that Comcast has concluded that the identifying information is associated with my account."

^^^See how clear and concise that was?  Perhaps you should focus on expressing yourself instead of typing with one hand as this seems to be what's gotten you into this predicament in the first place.  Was that a snarky low-blow (said the midget in the circus porn)?  Perhaps, but you kind of had it coming (like with the circus porn).



Obviously, I'm just busting your chops but take into consideration how your audience might perceive a post before you post it and try to be as clear as possible to avoid confusion.  Also, when you're asking for help and you question the intelligence of the people who are looking to help you by questioning if they are literate or not, it doesn't make people more inclined to want to provide that help.  Personally, the only reason I contributed was to help others in the future as there is a crapload of confusion over these issues, obviously.

I'm new here but not new to P2P sites. Previous Emule user...too many viruses caused me to switch.

So totally impressed! I think I just drooled because NO ONE...EVER....shares this much information nor takes the time! You are amazing! LOL...We've received this silly letter from our ISP and the funniest thing is, the day they "claim" the abuse, we were:
1. out of town.
2. with both of our kids (11 & 2 years old)
3. all internet abuse (if any) was done at site of where we were staying
4. lastly, the item they "claim" we "borrowed for an unlimited amount of time" was material we already had...PURCHASED....LOL....

I almost pee'd myself laughing thinking, how stupid do they think we are.

That being said, anyone suggest any "VPN" or "Seedblock" and TV-Tastic, are these apps/software successful? Any input would be greatly appreciated....

VPNs work. but they will slow your internet down considerably.

[Dundwell]

I created an account just to comment on the VPN services already listed. 

I use a Canadian company for VPN called BTGuard.
They offer two kinds of subscriptions.

the first is a fully-on VPN for all net activities for 99 bucks a year (u.s.)

the second type is a VPN for torrenting only which is 60 bucks a year.

This includes an encryption to their servers which keeps your provider from being able to snoop your traffic.
I've been with these people for the last 3 years and the speed matches what I used to get without any VPN service.
I've got Fios at 50/50 and my downloads get up to 7MB/s and uploads routinely get ~5MB/s
I don't think you can beat the value & the price of this vpn service.

One more thing to add to the discussion..

Copyright holders have been doing this stuff since the late 90's. I first became aware of it when hacked satellite boxes were all the rage.
That went on for years. They went after thousands of satellite users who did business with companies who supplied hardware and software 
to hack boxes. They raided these companies and got their customer list and then you got the letter in the mail demanding money or get sued.
There were a dozen sites dedicated to helping people w/ info and even offered legal documents. It was scarey stuff for a lot of people.

The next big headlines were when the RIAA went after the music uploaders. If you seeded a file, you were a target for them.

Then the rights holder for the movie 'The Hurt Locker' went after thousands of downloaders. 

They all had one thing in common. Once they identified the account holder from the ISP, they would offer to settle for typically between $3,000 to $5,000
If you did not agree or decided to fight them, they would threaten to raise that price much higher. They don't necessarily want to ruin you, they just want a quick buck
without having to make their lawyers do too much. Many settled to just let it go away. The rights holders sometimes wanted to make an example of some and would spend
hundreds of thousands in court to do so. One woman in Chicago had a few hundred songs on her computer and they ruined her to make that example.  

Hopefully, if your ISP refuses to give them your info, they may just give up. But there have been times when a judge has ordered the ISP to relinquish your name.
No one can tell how it will pan out. A few years back, a half-dozen of the largest ISP's had an agreement w/ the studios to just send warning letters out with
progressively harsh language for repeat offenders. If the piracy persisted, they would shut down your service. It was kind of a joke and it sounds like a few companies 
may try to bring back the old days and extort some easy money off your misdeeds. 

Be smart and get that VPN. It'll save you in the long run and you'll have peace of mind.

Good luck

[big-tony]

I get so many copywrite infringement notices it's crazy. I also have Comcast.
All they do is email me the notices though. and I NEVER get infringements on anything but Music.

It may sound unorthodox, but I'd recommend learning how to hack wifi and just crack one of your neighbor's wifi and connect to theirs when you want to download stuff lol
That, of course, is assuming you (have) neighbors and wireless adapter (if using a desktop).

Or like others said, get a VPN subscription. Avira has one that gives you 1GB free each month to use. which of course isn't much.
But considering you (mostly) get these copywrite notices with music, it may be enough for some

[Brainblip]

I get so many copywrite infringement notices it's crazy. I also have Comcast.
All they do is email me the notices though. and I NEVER get infringements on anything but Music.

It may sound unorthodox, but I'd recommend learning how to hack wifi and just crack one of your neighbor's wifi and connect to theirs when you want to download stuff lol
That, of course, is assuming you (have) neighbors and wireless adapter (if using a desktop).

Or like others said, get a VPN subscription. Avira has one that gives you 1GB free each month to use. which of course isn't much.
But considering you (mostly) get these copywrite notices with music, it may be enough for some

Good thing you don't have mediacom because they have a 3 strike rule.  3 DMCA notices and they shut you off forever.

[Tech]

Aren't most f these DMCA notices just fake anyway?

I know, (why take the chance) but if users can't tell the real ting from just a bunch of copyright trolls, why get worried at all ?

To give it away, its its a demand for money, that's the piece to look at... i wouldn't worry about it and ignore..  Even if use a VPN, that is good, or Tor, *but* if u did continue and they take you to court, u can get away with it be arguing they were copyright tool or something..

Since courts don't like them either, that could be a good option....