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

[stormium]

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...

you downloaded some porn and now the malibu porn jackoffs have subpoenaed comcast to hand over the account holder's information through to the court so that they (malibu porn jackoffs) can attempt to extort money from the account holder for illegally sharing their copyrighted wanking vids.

you can read about malibu media here: https://www.eff.org/cases/malibu-media

here's the most important thing to remember: don't sign weird shit from people who may show up at your door and don't admit to downloading anything. malibu media is going to attempt to humiliate the account holder into paying... but an ip address is not a person so they have no proof of who downloaded what.

oh, yeah... peerblock is fucking useless. if you really want to cover your ass, invest in a decent vpn or seedbox.

[planex09]

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.

[stormium]

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.

yeah, you did.

I got a subpoena from comcast today on behalf of Malibu Media LLC

if you wanted to say that comcast received a subpoena from the court on behalf of malibu media llc. regarding your internet porn habits, you should have said that instead...

read the rest of the post i posted earlier and find your answers.

[gcjm]

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.

You've received a warning letter from your isp, a notice of a subpoena.
That wasn't made clear in the opening post, or the title.

it looks like this is a simple warning letter from the isp to be used as tp for bunghole.

No need to worry about your possible futures. If you receive a letter of threat from Malibu Media's legal team, the advice in this thread still stands.

[planex09]

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.

yeah, you did.

I got a subpoena from comcast today on behalf of Malibu Media LLC

Ok, I can see how the wording I used was ambiguous at best, but what it says is still factual:
I got a subpoena from comcast today :: Today I received a copy of a subpoena. It was mailed to me from comcast
on behalf of Malibu Media LLC :: The subpoena was made on behalf of Malibu Media LLC

[stormium]

it's not ambiguous when you say you got something. anyway, don't sweat it... english is a complex language for some people to grasp.

as for your questions... again...

peerblock sucks dick... it's fucking useless. the way it works is that it does not hide your ip address. it just blocks certain ip addresses from connecting to you. if you want to protect yourself, get a vpn or a seedbox.

as for malibu media llc, had you read the page i linked you to... it outlines their entire method of operation. basically, they are going to try to shame you into paying them under threat of public lawsuit that you downloaded crazy midget circus porn... or martha stewart's sex tape... or whatever brand of nasty it was that you were into at the time.

so, at some point, malibu media llc. will make contact with you - usually through a certified letter - don't sign for shit. only three types of letters are sent as certified mail and you don't want any of them. if the certified letter fails to be delivered, they might try a courier... once again, don't sign for shit. if they use a delivery service like ups or fed-ex... ask the driver what it is... they'll usually tell you. if you don't want it, don't sign for it.

you don't need a lawyer yet. lawyers are expensive... but, since malibu media is on the eff's radar, they might be of some assistance to you.

as for your ip address not identifying a person, you're right... and the courts agree... but that does not matter since their objective is not to sue you but to shame you into paying their settlement amount.

[snilloc]

it's not ambiguous when you say you got something. anyway, don't sweat it... english is a complex language for some people to grasp.

as for your questions... again...

peerblock sucks dick... it's fucking useless. the way it works is that it does not hide your ip address. it just blocks certain ip addresses from connecting to you. if you want to protect yourself, get a vpn or a seedbox.

as for malibu media llc, had you read the page i linked you to... it outlines their entire method of operation. basically, they are going to try to shame you into paying them under threat of public lawsuit that you downloaded crazy midget circus porn... or martha stewart's sex tape... or whatever brand of nasty it was that you were into at the time.

so, at some point, malibu media llc. will make contact with you - usually through a certified letter - don't sign for shit. only three types of letters are sent as certified mail and you don't want any of them. if the certified letter fails to be delivered, they might try a courier... once again, don't sign for shit. if they use a delivery service like ups or fed-ex... ask the driver what it is... they'll usually tell you. if you don't want it, don't sign for it.

you don't need a lawyer yet. lawyers are expensive... but, since malibu media is on the eff's radar, they might be of some assistance to you.

as for your ip address not identifying a person, you're right... and the courts agree... but that does not matter since their objective is not to sue you but to shame you into paying their settlement amount.

Are you seriously suggesting that in this day and age people are gullible enough to be "SHAMED" into paying monies?
I do agree don't sign for shit apart from that they can take a flying fuck at the moon.
Shame or no shame they wouldn't get a penny from me.
Theres no shame in being a pirate.

[snowmonkey]

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.

yeah, you did.

I got a subpoena from comcast today on behalf of Malibu Media LLC

Ok, I can see how the wording I used was ambiguous at best, but what it says is still factual:
I got a subpoena from comcast today :: Today I received a copy of a subpoena. It was mailed to me from comcast
on behalf of Malibu Media LLC :: The subpoena was made on behalf of Malibu Media LLC

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

Not signing a certified letter only works for a little while. If they really have something worth the time it will just convince them you're being evasive so they use a hired server that sooner or later will get you to respond to your name, and your served, no signature needed. Then the costs are just added to the attorney money when they come after you.

Obviously, the ip addy is tied to an account in someone's name. If it's in your name, you will have to create reasonable doubt that you didn't do it. Not really that easy since comcast has you agree to accept all responsibility for using the account.

Until you get something from the media co you really don't know what you may need to protect yourself.

[planex09]

peerblock sucks dick... it's fucking useless. the way it works is that it does not hide your ip address. it just blocks certain ip addresses from connecting to you. if you want to protect yourself, get a vpn or a seedbox.

I'll have to look into this, thanks.

as for malibu media llc, had you read the page i linked you to... it outlines their entire method of operation.

I did read it, thanks. I don't think anyone here is arguing over the legitimacy of the information on EFF.

Not signing a certified letter only works for a little while. If they really have something worth the time it will just convince them you're being evasive so they use a hired server that sooner or later will get you to respond to your name, and your served, no signature needed.

Obviously, the ip addy is tied to an account in someone's name. If it's in your name, you will have to create reasonable doubt that you didn't do it. Not really that easy since comcast has you agree to accept all responsibility for using the account.

These two things are what I'm most concerned with at this point.

[TV-Tastic]

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.