The subpoenas were issued by the United States District Court for the Central District of California in April 2010. The attachments to the subpoenas detail the user name, URL, event, and the number of views connected with the allegedly infringing display, reproduction, and/or distribution of the copyrighted work.
Notably, the subpoena only seeks production of:
Documents or electronically stored information in possession of or available to Justin.tv [or Ustream.tv] sufficient to allow Zuffa, LLC to identify the infringer(s) who made available for streaming on Justin.tv the video recordings described in the Notice of Copyright infringement attached as Exhibit A.Thus, consistent with its press release, Zuffa is not seeking the identity of those individuals who may have viewed the stream, i.e. it is concerned with the individuals or entities providing the stream.
I also took a quick look at the details provided on both the attachment to the Justin.tv subpoena and the Ustream.tv subpoena and it appears that there are a number of different allegedly infringing user names and IP addresses at issue. However, it appears that in some instances many of the distinct user names were traced back to the same IP address.
There also is a striking difference between the number of views on Ustream.tv and Justin.tv -- of all of the alleged views referenced in the Zuffa press release (114,000), it appears that less than 4,000 were through Ustream.tv.
Finally, as set forth above, even though the press release was issued last week, both subpoenas were signed by the clerk of the court in April 2010 and were returnable (Justin.tv and Ustream.tv were required to comply by) April 30 and May 10, 2010 respectively. There could, have course, been extensions agreed upon, but these dates are on the face of the subpoenas.
Fight Lawyer
