Complying quickly with an order is a sign of respect rather than dragging your heels until the last possible minute.

I was under the impression that we all knew that IP addresses mean shit when trying to identify a person....

If they were only downloading and not sharing how did they get caught?

Perhaps you could shed a little more light on things. The average person sees a deadline as something you don't want to miss, but can be early on. So the typical response here is "Verizon was ordered to do by the 12th, they did 5 days early, what's the problem?". Now, I've done a little digging around, and apparently the defendant normally has the right to submit a motion for the subpoena to be modified or quashed, if their motion is submitted prior to the returnable date of the subpoena. So how exactly does this work? Is there an unspoken, unwritten rule that you aren't supposed to deliver documents ordered by a subpoena prior to the subpoena's returnable date, to allow for it to be contested?

And then the motion to quash was filed by a pro se litigant - not by Verizon. The subpoena ordered Verizon to provide the data and Verizon happily complied. So where did this John Doe pro se litigant come from?

And why were they able to file a motion to quash?

Was the John Doe implicated prior to the information being handed over? or after?

Do we know if Verizon knew of the motion to quash?

Do we know if Verizon knew that the pro se litigant even existed and had the right to file a motion to quash?

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);