It's probably not really about them in particular.
It's not about them, they are just a means to an end. I also suspect that LFJ's ultimate goal has nothing to do with copyrights and everything to do with punishing and intimidating all the other Kiwis who have been regulars in his thread. Like I posted above, a couple of the alleged "infringers" have Archive.is mirrors going back years, especially Sexy Senior's going back to 2022, which is an indication that someone (I obviously suspect LFJ himself but I obviously can't prove that) has been monitoring those user accounts for that long.
The fact that some of the users now targeted by the subpoena appear to be British to me suggests that LFJ might been ethnically profiling the regulars in his thread to distinguish Americans from Brits, knowing that Americans are 1A protected whereas Brits can be prosecuted in their own country over Hasspostings. I believe that's the long-game here. LFJ has obviously seen the videos on social media of Brits getting a knock on the door from the British police over memes, and he must've gotten very inspired by all that State repression that he as a leftist is supposedly so against. LFJ knows that Brits come to KF to say things they can't say in the UK, because Europe is still in the dark ages when it comes to freedom of speech protections.
I bet you: if LFJ gets the doxx and it turns out the infringers were Americans who were location-LARPing with VPNs and British grammar, LFJ likely won't even do anything to them (or he'll
give it to "get hacked" by
his personal friends and DKF co-conspirators Hackers on Estradiol, who will leak the Kiwi doxx and let the raping of nature take its course). But if my theory is right and some of these users do turn out to be British nationals or residents, LFJ will just ignore the American "infringers" (cos there is nothing he can do about those) and only go after the British ones as the most opportune legal targets. I suspect it's a combination ethnic profiling and forum shopping.
Make no mistake, Null might exploit this too, he might try to protect American Kiwis by setting up legal fundraisers for them and promoting them on KF or helping them get 1A lawyers behind the scenes (I bet Hardin by now knows every 1A lawyer anywhere in the US on a first name basis), but he might have to tell the British Kiwis, look blokes, there is nothing I can do for you if you're outside of the US, you're on your own now. I cannot help you legally because I, as an "US legal website", cannot afford to have legal forum contact with the UK, because what would open me to British lolsuits, etc.
As Josh said on last week's podcast, they knew LFJ's glamor-pic was lawsuit-bait. And they still decided to post it to spite LFJ and walk right into his bear trap. That is supreme hubris from Josh and the KF'ers.
I had a look at that picture that LFJ claims is copyrighted and it doesn't even look like a regular, professional, corporate head-shot by a pro photographer using lighting or angles, like the one you'd put on top of a resume if they wanted to see your face before inviting you. To me, it looks like a selfie in the park with garish colour saturation and a lens-flare added. If I had seen that picture as a stand-alone pic on social media not knowing who the subject was, nothing about it would've indicated to me that this was a professional head-shot that was worth copyrighting. It's looks unprofessional and pedestrian enough to not look copyrighted. It doesn't even have a visible copyright notice at the bottom. It's possible it had a copyright watermark embedded in the image itself (and how would one know this if they just screenshot it as a Bsky embed?), or a copyright notice as a subscript on LinkedIn, I don't know. I'm not gonna go to his LinkedIn to check, I don't want to have mine associated with his in any shape or form. (If anyone here has a LinkedIn sock, feel free to check if it's watermarked, here's how to do it). But prima facie it doesn't look to me like a copyrighted image. The LCF Nonnas describing it as a "trap" was a good description.
Null could have told his users to request the deletion of all account data and posts under GDPR the second this lawsuit mentioned doxing, without it being a legal demand, and saved himself a headache.
Clearly you don't know what the fuck you're on about. The GDPR doesn't mean an American website gets to destroy evidence at the request of a European user after having received a discovery subpoena, that is preposterous. Why do you think that, whenever you delete your account on a mainstream social media platform (Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, you name it)
they don't actually truly delete your account but merely make it invisible on their outward facing server, while retaining a full copy of the account and all log-on information on their internal servers? Because there is no real DFE on social media sites, and KF is not different.
If Null was logging account data like IP addresses before the lolsuit, he is legally obliged the moment he gets subpoenaed to preserve anything listed in the subpoena as discoverable. Are gonna go and read the subpoena to see what's actually requested of him, or are you just gonna continue pulling this bullshit out of your ass? If Null were to delete his log files right now post hoc being served the subpoena, that constitutes the intentional destruction of potential evidence, and he'd be in big trouble legally.
Tbh I want to see Josh try to defend himself,
Again dumbass, go and read the fucking legal documents before running your mouth here like an idiot. Null is the one suing Liz Fong Jones, not the other way around. Null is the plaintiff, not the defendant. LFJ has to defend himself. LFJ sent that subpoena in order to sidestep his defense, after getting permission to delay it by 3+months, which was clearly just a gurldique move to get the subpoena out before he has even defended himself against Null's claim that his DMCA take-down request was in bad faith.
I asked him to delete the data of an alt to see what he would do. He told me to fuck off, in not so few words.
And he rightly told your dumb ass to fuck off, because you were literally asking him to delete discoverable evidence.
Just STFU about this lolsuit if you don't even understand who's suing who or what the rules are for preserving evidence during a lolsuit.
Again, the GDPR is not an excuse to delete discoverable evidence like log files with IP addresses after receiving a subpoena.
If Null was already in the habit of deleting IP addresses on a session-by-session basis BEFORE the subpoena, that would've been different.
But, like I wrote about, I suspected on the basis of other incidents on the forum that Null was logging IP addresses. Hence the constant hammering on using VPNs to access KF.
