For example, the rightsholders argued that the Redditors\u2019 comments are key evidence to show that ISPs didn\u2019t implement a suitable repeat infringer policy, and that subsequently acted as a draw to pirating subscribers.<\/p>\n
Reddit views the requests as intrusive. The company objected to the\u00a0initial attempt<\/a>, arguing that handing over the requested information would violate users\u2019 First Amendment right to anonymous speech. Reddit later responded similarly to a\u00a0second<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0third<\/a>\u00a0subpoena request.<\/p>\n The movie companies took these cases to a federal court, asking it to compel Reddit to comply. The court refused to do so,\u00a0on several occasions<\/a>\u00a0and for varying reasons.<\/p>\n The film companies, including Killing Link Distribution and movant Voltage Holdings, disagreed with the lower court decisions. They appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,\u00a0requesting a reversal<\/a>.<\/p>\n In their opening brief at the Ninth Circuit, the movie companies stress that the users\u2019 IP addresses requested in the DMCA subpoena are key evidence to show that Frontier is liable for its subscribers\u2019 copyright infringements.<\/p>\n \u201cParticularly, the IP addresses show that the users who made incriminating comments were, one, making these comments from Frontier\u2019s Internet service, and two, had shared pirated copies of Appellants\u2019 Works from the IP addresses.<\/p>\n \u201cFurther, the IP addresses are necessary to show that the users who boasted that Frontier took no action in response to DMCA notices were indeed users of Frontier\u2019s service and thereby rebut Frontier\u2019s safe harbor defense,\u201d the movie companies add.<\/p>\n Thus far, the movie companies haven\u2019t had much success with these DMCA subpoenas against Reddit. However, U.S. District Court Judge James Donato offered some hope. While the court ultimately denied the request for a \u2018de novo\u2019 review this summer, it offered a different view on the First Amendment angle.<\/p>\n Unlike the earlier decisions, including that of the magistrate judge, Judge Donato didn\u2019t see this as an anonymous speech matter.<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t think this is a First Amendment case. It\u2019s plain as day that these people were saying that they were involved in copyright infringement, and First Amendment does not protect infringing conduct,\u201d the Judge said at a hearing.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Instead, the DMCA subpoena was denied because the requested information doesn\u2019t justify the discovery burden on Reddit. The result is the same for the movie companies, but the courts\u2019 varying reasons are part of the motivation to appeal.<\/p>\n Last month, Reddit responded to the opening brief, requesting the Court of Appeals to affirm that the DMCA subpoena should be quashed. This conclusion can be reached based on the lower court\u2019s finding that the value of the requested information fails to justify the burden.<\/p>\n In addition, Reddit stresses that, contrary to Judge Donato\u2019s finding, the First Amendment right to anonymous speech does come into play here as well.<\/p>\n \u201cThe anonymous speech targeted by the subpoena is unquestionably protected by the First Amendment. Talking about pirating movies is not copyright infringement, and even the \u2018advocacy of illegal acts\u2019 is \u2018within the First Amendment\u2019s core\u2019,\u201d Reddit writes in its answer.<\/p>\n Whether the court quashes the DMCA subpoena based on the \u2018First Amendment\u2019 or the \u2018undue burden\u2019 argument is irrelevant to the outcome of this case, Reddit notes. In both cases, it should be quashed.<\/p>\n \u201cThis Court should affirm the district court\u2019s quashing of the subpoena because, at best, it is nothing more than a fishing expedition, and at worst, it is a targeted attempt to intimidate Reddit users and chill their speech,\u201d Reddit notes.<\/p>\n Reddit\u2019s position is supported by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF<\/a>) which filed an amicus curiae brief at the Court of Appeals. The group agrees that the motion can be quashed for \u2018undue burden\u2019 but it is particularly interested in the anonymous speech angle.<\/p>\n EFF warns that Judge Donato\u2019s remark shouldn\u2019t trump existing jurisprudence. Instead, the Court of Appeals should follow the reasoning of the magistrate judge\u2019s analysis regarding anonymous speech.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is well established that the First Amendment\u2019s robust protections for anonymous speech apply to online speakers, and that they cannot be unmasked unless the party seeking to identify them can meet a heightened standard.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is also clear that there is no copyright exception to this rule,\u201d EFF adds.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Last week, the movie companies responded to arguments presented by Reddit and the EFF. According to their filing, Reddit did not raise the undue burden initially and there is no evidence on the record to suggest that it will be burdened by the DMCA subpoena request.<\/p>\n The appellants also counter the First Amendment arguments, stressing that there is no evidence that disclosing the IP-addresses of the six Redditors will chill any protected speech.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Reddit users\u2019 comments are not protests of copyright laws or even discussion of copyright laws as described by Reddit but boasts of \u2018deliberate unlawful copying [that] is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden variety theft,\u201d they write.<\/p>\n In addition, the movie companies deny that there\u2019s any \u201cunmasking\u201d involved here, as they are not asking for names and phone numbers (anymore). They claim the IP addresses will confirm that the Reddit users are Frontier subscribers, so the DMCA subpoena should be allowed.<\/p>\n All in all, it\u2019s clear that both sides have entirely different views on the matter. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will take a closer look, and ultimately come to a decision.<\/p>\n \u2014<\/em><\/p>\n A copy of the referenced opening brief is available\u00a0here (pdf)<\/a>. Here are copies of\u00a0Reddit\u2019s response (pdf)<\/a>, EFF\u2019s\u00a0amicus curiae brief (pdf)<\/a>, and the\u00a0movie companies\u2019 reply (pdf)<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n Source: \u00a0Court of Appeals<\/h2>\n
First Amendment?<\/h2>\n
![\"free](\"https:\/\/torrentfreak.com\/images\/firstamen.jpg.webp)
<\/picture><\/center> <\/p>\nReddit Responds<\/h2>\n
EFF Chimes In<\/h2>\n
![\"eff\"](\"https:\/\/torrentfreak.com\/images\/effurges.jpg.webp)
<\/picture><\/center> <\/p>\nMovie Companies Double Down<\/h2>\n
![\"Sky](\"http:\/\/worldjusticenews.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/sky-news-logo-1.png\"){kind=logo}
<\/a> news.sky.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"