But ISPs do shit like that all the time. If they get a subpoena for your info in a "John Doe" form what they are supposed to do is notify you so you can fight it, if you wish. While filing a "John Doe" suit is a common and valid legal strategy when you are going after someone but lack the ability to identify them directly yet, that doesn't mean it is automatic. It is also used as a fishing expedition, as seen in these cases, and in those cases courts may quash it. Hence, your ISP tells you, and then if it isn't quashed (because you don't contest it or because a judge decides it is fine), they hand over the info.

Someone was (accused of) making a bunch of copies of something, without permission.

The accuser's lackey hands over information, before the Court decides if it's appropriate to enter it into evidence.

The Court decides it isn't (yet) appropriate, and orders all copies of the evidence destroyed.
IOW, the accuser is now accused of making a bunch of copies of something, without permission. They just got a taste of their own medicine, at the hands of an unhappy judge.

I think it's something like this:
Malibu Media: "These addresses belong to the people who pirated our stuff. We demand their identities!"
The Judge: "Not so fast! I still have to check if you are entitled to this information."
Verizon, nonetheless: "Here, have their identities."
The Judge: "Fuck, are you deaf or just stupid? I said they can't have this information yet! Delete that shit right now or I'll open a can of legal whoopass on you."

Basically what we've got is Verizon saying, "Oh goodie, we're so eager to ignore our user's privacy that we're going to jump right on mailing out their personal information to any third party who might be interested." Yeah, yeah, they have a court order, and obviously you have to comply with that, but you certainly don't have to go and do it early.

That's a great theory... Why don't you look in the copyright act and find where there's support for that theory that he's not subject to licensing fees since he didn't charge? We'll wait.

to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending 17. USC 106(3);

I for one welcome our NYCL Overlords!

I haven't seen NYCL (NewYorkCountryLawyer, for the uninformed) in a while and I do terribly miss him. He's one of the nicer things about Slashdot. But, it looks like he started posting again in the last few days! Hello NYCL!