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.
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.