A California court ordered X to reveal to publisher Cognosphere the identities of four Genshin Impact leakeders, stating that the company's concerns over First Amendment protections were unwarranted.
TorrentFreak reported that in November 2023, Cognosphere obtained a DMCA Subpoena requiring X Corp to "disclose identity, including name(s), address (es), phone number(s), and email addresses" of person or persons behind four Twitter accounts, @HutaoLoverGI, @GIHutaoLover, @HutaoLover77, and @FurinaaLover.
X refused to comply. It said it needed more than a DMCA Subpoena, signed by a clerk, to compel them to take action. They asked for a court decision to determine if the claim was "sufficient to satisfy the First Amendment free speech protections applicable to anonymous speakers."
Now a court has ruled that it is. In a ruling issued last week, the court ruled that the speech in question, i.e. the leaked Genshin Impact materials, is not "core First Amendment Expression," and that Cognosphere acted with good faith, and "has shown a prima facie copyright violation in its request for DMCA subpoena."
X's request for a DMCA subpoena to be quashed is therefore denied and it must comply with the request.
Cognosphere is not the first to take aggressive measures to find out the identities of Genshin Impact leakeders on social media. Cognosphere warned in 2021 that it would "intensify its efforts to deal illegal disclosures" after dataminers began to share information about a upcoming Genshin Impact upgrade. In 2022, it followed through and filed a lawsuit against Discord, forcing it to reveal the leaker's identity.
The denial in this case is accompanied by what I find to be an unusual rebuke directed at X's attorneys, asking them to stop wasting court time. In the conclusion to the ruling, judge Peter H. Kang noted that X Corp. had expressed the opinion that it was unable to comply on its own with a DMCA Subpoena and that X Corp. must file a Motion to Quash (or force a party seeking discovery to submit a Motion to enforce the Subpoena).
Kang stated that lawyers "have ethical and professional duties" to "assert objections and refuse to comply with a subpoena when well-grounded, justified," as well as "duty not to unnecessarily multiplie the proceedings." He continued that discovery is usually done "without the necessity of constant court intervention" and that X's position, which says it must always seek a DMCA Subpoena to be quashed, "is not well supported by law."
Kang wrote that "there is nothing in the DMCA text which prohibits the reasonable resolution of DMCA disputes, under appropriate circumstances, without a contested action," "Where X Corp. receives a DMCA Subpoena that credibly and reasonably requests information relating accounts accused of a facially undeniable copyright infringement such as in the instant case, the Court expects X Corp. to respond and seek a collaborative resolution to achieve an economical, efficient and reasonable determination of DMCA action such as this instant matter."
Comments