Discord Disputes DMCA Subpoena, Rejects Role As 'Anti-Piracy' Partner

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: Korean game publisher Nexon is using the U.S. legal system to address online copyright infringement. The company obtained a DMCA subpoena that requires Discord to hand over the personal details of suspected pirates. While Discord has shared information in the past, it doesn't plan to cooperate any longer, refusing to play the role of 'anti-piracy police'. [...] The messaging platform wrote that it is prepared to file a motion to quash the subpoena, if needed. It further urged Nexon to withdraw their demands, and cease sending any similar 'defective' subpoenas going forward. To support its stance, Discord made a list of twenty-two general objections and reservations. Among other things, the company wants to protect user privacy and their first amendment right to anonymous speech.

"Discord objects to the Requests as infringing its users' decisions to remain anonymous, an aspect of their freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. The Requests improperly seek to unmask anonymous speakers and consequently compel disclosure of material protected by the First Amendment," it reads. This strongly-worded letter didn't have the desired result, however. Instead of backing off, Nexon doubled down, filing a motion to compel (PDF) at a Texas federal court late last week. The game company refutes Discord's objections and asks the court to enter an order requiring Discord to produce the requested user data. Nexon says that it needs this information to protect its copyrights. "Discord's failure to cooperate discovery has impeded Nexon's ability to discover relevant, non-privileged information that will support its potential claims against the users who have provided access to the infringing material," Nexon writes. While the court has yet to rule on the matter, Discord is expected to file a formal motion to quash the subpoena in response, as indicated in its earlier communications.

The person you requested information about

[Z00L00K]

Resides in (random pick) one of Russia, North Korea, Iran, Myanmar, Nigeria, Cuba or Venezuela according to our data. Have fun!

Re:

[evanh]

Or, the company making this subpoena is not of US origin. Good luck with the courts.

On the other, it's the DMCA wielded club again. It should be a shoe-in for Nexon.

Re:

[Z00L00K]

One of the days there's a DMCA request against the wrong party and you'll get an offer you can't refuse.

DMCA

[JBMcB]

I'm pretty sure the DMCA only covers direct copyright infringement. IE if someone posted a video to Discord protected by copyright, the copyright holder can request Discord take it down. It doesn't cover information about infringement, which is what it looks like people are posting on Discord.

Re: DMCA

[fortfive]

Pretty sure google removes zillions of sites that are just links to other sites a out where to possibly find infringing content.

Re:

[Ed Tice]

Most large providers (Google included) try to remove infringing content proactively. It's not clear that they need to do this but it's probably cheaper and easier than the DMCA notice process.

Re:

[MooseTick]

Do they do it due to DMCA or because they decided they think the links are problematic for whatever reason.

Re:

[omnichad]

While you're right, the DMCA is constantly abused. And to refuse to follow the request is an acceptance you will likely have to go to court over the issue. Google will take down a URL on a DMCA request. Which, sure, if the URL contains copyrighted information is valid. But what if it is the URL of a web site that just has links to infringing web sites? Aiding and abetting is a crime, but it isn't a copyright infringement and is out of scope.

Re:DMCA

[unrtst]

But what if it is the URL of a web site that just has links to infringing web sites? Aiding and abetting is a crime, but it isn't a copyright infringement and is out of scope.

There was recently a story about LibGen (Library Genesis) getting sued for copyright infringement and losing with a default judgement (anonymous defendants):
https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]

LibGen hosts/distributes files (primarily?) via IPFS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterPlanetary_File_System). IPFS is a distributed file system that uses content based addressing.

LibGen is basically a link aggregator, linking book/article/whatever metadata to the IPFS resource.

I don't agree with the ruling, but they were hit with copyright infringement while not hosting nor distributing any content - just linking to it.

Re:

[omnichad]

A default judgment doesn't really have to have merit. If there's even a hint that the complaint could be valid, you win if the other party doesn't show up.

Re:

[unrtst]

It's very clear that LibGen was just a link aggregator, and they lost. Granted, it was a default judgement, but I made sure to note that. It's certainly not the first time someone lost a case where they were just linking to copyrighted material. IANAL, but I believe it's referred to as "Contributory copyright infringement". IE:

"Contributory copyright infringement
This occurs when someone knowingly links to a copyrighted work, which is considered to be encouraging others to view it. ..."

Re:

[Ed Tice]

The best known part of the DMCA is the notice and counter-notice provisions. The way it works is that, if a party believes content infringes their copyrights, they notify the service provider. The service provider will then contact the content creator who file a counter-claim that the content isn't infringing. If the service provider does their part, they are not considered a party to the infringement. Some (many/most) service providers shortcut this and simply remove the content when the notice is rece

Re:

[mysidia]

However, there are other components of the DMCA. And one of them is a subpoena process to find out the creators of certain content.

The DMCA does not provide anything for identifying "suspected" pirates. Unless that person is the actual Alleged infringer related to content that was posted and Identified by a submitted 512(C) takedown request to the same service provider - the Subpoena process is for Identifying which user directed the posting of the thing At the location you had identified In order to

Re:

[Ed Tice]

Perhaps my summary was too condensed. The DMCA doesn't allow for subpoena of random things. But it's a different type of subpoena process than normal in that it doesn't have to be approved by a judge. It's handled by the clerk of the court. And yes it requires a sworn statement of alleged infringement. But all subpoenas are enforceable. In some cases, if a subpoena seems ridiculous (as it might be in this case), a provider (such as Discord) might be willing to spend their own time and resources to qua

Re:

[mysidia]

By DMCA subpoena: They probably just mean Subpoena issued in connection with federal lawsuit issued under the DMCA.

They would HAVE to have a federal case in the US that was not dismissed already went through a Rule 26(f) conference, according to the federal rules of civil procedure: In other words, discovery already started on their lawsuit. If not, then the Texas court ought to throw out their motion to compel. Because you are Only allowed to issue subpoenas in connection with an active court cas

Re:

[DamnOregonian]

I've dealt with several of these over the years. Our lawyers said there was no realistic way to avoid fulfilling them. You have very few rights to refuse to provide the parties in a court case with information relevant to their case, and by our estimation the subpoenas all seemed pretty relevant, even if hated.

Re: DMCA

[dpille]

In these cases, it merely takes a motion to the court for leave to serve the subpoena, even though there has been no discovery conference. (How would you know who to have the discovery conference with?)

Anyway, here's one in action:
https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/florida/flsdce/1:2023cv23272/653143/7/0.pdf?ts=1694766609

Re:

[mysidia]

In these cases, it merely takes a motion to the court for leave to serve the subpoena

Yes.. it takes a motion: which can be granted or denied.

For example: We found file X on Discord server Y posted by user Z. Take this file down and Identify user Z seems like a reasonable request.

On the other hand... The company probably asked something like "Identify user Z. Identify all the users who downloaded this file. Identify the user who created this server. Identify the moderators on this server.

Re:

[DamnOregonian]

This is a subpoena in a DMCA-related case, not a DMCA take-down.
The lawyers can subpoena whoever they like to "testify" (provide testimony/evidence) with regard to that trial.

'right to anonymous speech' whut?

[Fly Swatter]

Is that why they locked my one minute old account that already had my verified email until I gave them a fucking phone number? Fuck discord.