Thursday, August 5, 2010

TorrentFreak Email Update

TorrentFreak Email Update

Day Four: AFACT v iiNet BitTorrent Piracy Appeal

Posted: 05 Aug 2010 01:37 AM PDT

After an earlier ruling went in iiNet's favor, the ISP and the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft were back in Federal Court for the fourth straight day of the appeal today. AFACT, representing many Hollywood studios, argued that Internet subscribers should be held accountable not just for their own infringements, but for those carried out by anyone using their account.

As the hearing entered its fourth day, AFACT, representing the Village Roadshow and more than thirty Hollywood studios, and ISP iiNet were back in Federal Court for the appeal in their copyright infringement dispute. Three judges will eventually decide if iiNet can be held accountable for copyright infringements carried out by its customers.

In the meantime, AFACT would like to go a step further, as it insisted today that Internet subscribers should not only be responsible for their own infringements, but for those carried out by anyone using their account.

AFACT lawyer Christian Dimitriadis told the panel of three judges that is was irrelevant if an account holder infringed copyright or not, adding: "The fact that the user may be another person other than the subscriber doesn't change the fact that the information relates to the personal affairs of the subscriber."

Dimitriadis said that even though the Internet bill-payer was the only one to physically enter into an agreement with iiNet, by default all other users of that connection must also agree to be bound by the same terms. AFACT continues to argue that if subscribers break the terms of their agreement and use their accounts to break the law, iiNet has the ability and power to terminate their contracts and disconnect them from the Internet.

According to another report today, that notion has started to receive the sympathy.

In a continuation from our earlier report, yesterday two of the appeal judges questioned Justice Cowdroy’s reasoning in the original ruling which deemed that disconnecting customer accounts was an unreasonable response to infringements.

Cowdroy reasoned that from the evidence provided in the case, it could not be decided to what extent any subscriber had used their account for infringement.

Lawyer for iiNet Richard Cobden told Justice Arthur Emmett that on this basis it would unreasonable to close a customer account. Justice John Nicholas then asked if the evidence ever showed to what extent customers used their accounts for piracy.

“We’re just saying that the reasonable step that would be incumbent upon an ISP must be tailored to what has been put in front of them,” said Cobden, according to The Australian.

“And if what’s put in front of us is that there’s not a significant use of quota on an account in relation to this, it affects the question of whether the reasonable step to be taken is to turn over the whole account which, as we say, is what our learned friends seek.”

In other words, the evidence provided by AFACT – which shows that a particular account was infringing copyright at a precise moment in time – does not show to what extent an account was used to infringe copyright overall.

Justice Emmett, however, suggested that maybe an important point had been arrived at.

“Maybe the stage is reached where it’s reasonable to say, ‘Look, you’ve had warning after warning. Maybe you’re doing other lawful things, but if you insist on doing this unlawful activity, we’re going to close you down’.”

Cobden later countered that he could only go by the evidence provided in the case, and that shutting down an account was not an appropriate response to it.

iiNet weren’t the only ones to point to a lack of evidence in order to refute an argument. In the original hearing, iiNet said the existence of its legal content distribution platform, Freezone, showed that the ISP had made efforts to discourage users from sharing illegal content and that this model was a better way to deal with piracy than legal action by outfits such as AFACT.

AFACT lawyer David Catterns told the Federal Court that the existence of Freezone is irrelevant, since there is no evidence that portal reduced piracy on iiNet’s network.

The two sides also clashed on the implications of the Telecommunications Act and whether ISPs could use it as a reason not to deal with infringement notices issued by rights holders such as AFACT.

The hearing continues.

Article from: TorrentFreak.

The Pirate Bay Says Goodbye to Suprnova

Posted: 04 Aug 2010 01:58 PM PDT

In 2007 the Pirate Bay crew resurrected the legendary BitTorrent site Suprnova.org, which had shut down due to legal pressure three years earlier. The legend returned, but due to a combination of circumstances it remained just a shadow of what it once was. This week, The Pirate Bay crew returned the domain to its former owner who now has big plans for the site.

suprnovaIn the fall of 2002, just months after Bram Cohen released his first version of BitTorrent to the public, a new website called Suprnova.org was born.

Before The Pirate Bay, Torrentz and isoHunt were even started, Suprnova was already serving torrents to the masses. Like many sites in the early days of BitTorrent, the site began with a very primitive setup. It was hosted on a Linux box at the the home of its founder Andrej Preston, a Slovenian teenager better known as Sloncek.

In the months that followed Suprnova grew out to become the largest BitTorrent site on the Internet, with over a million visitors a day. But it didn’t last. Along with huge popularity came the legal threats, and these eventually made Andrej decide to close the site in December 2004. As time went by other sites quickly filled the gap left behind by Suprnova.

That wasn’t the end of the site though. In 2007, Suprnova returned to the BitTorrent stage, resurrected by the folks behind The Pirate Bay. Unfortunately, the site never even came close to its former glory, with just a few thousands visitors passing by each month.

For the former owner of the site, the decay of his baby was hard to watch.

“The Pirate Bay got huge press and they made a big statement on piracy (and how there is no stopping them) which benefited them a lot. Unfortunately, when the media attention passed, they completely forgot about the site and left it dead for years,” Sloncek told TorrentFreak today.

Because the site wasn’t of much use to anyone, Sloncek contacted the Pirate Bay crew a few months ago, hoping that they would return the domain that he once donated to them.

“A few months ago I tried to get the domain back, since I do feel like it is still a part of me. Even though it is just a domain name it has a lot of sentimental value. Thankfully, the Pirate Bay crew were kind enough to return the domain. On Monday, Suprnova.org was finally transferred back to me, and I have to admit, it feels good to have it back.”

Although he does sound a bit disgruntled, Sloncek says that there’s no bad blood between him and the Pirate Bay crew.

“I don't want it to sound like I am mad at The Pirate Bay or anybody involved, I think that they tried to make a statement and they did. I just wished they actually did more with the domain or had returned it sooner,” Sloncek explains.

“All in all, I'm happy to have it back. My plan is not to turn it into a torrent site, but more of a online video portal. I guess I will go into more details later on, once I understand exactly what I want it to become. The thought of having it back is still very fresh and exciting,” he adds.

This new project suits the 2010 Sloncek better as he’s currently in San Francisco and attending the Academy of Art University where he focuses on TV and online video production. Although Sloncek is no longer actively involved, he didn’t cut his roots to the BitTorrent scene completely. He’s currently directing TorrentFreak TV in his spare time, which might be featured on the new Suprnova later this year.

Article from: TorrentFreak.

Day Three: AFACT v iiNet BitTorrent Piracy Appeal

Posted: 04 Aug 2010 06:01 AM PDT

It's the third day in Federal Court for the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft and ISP iiNet. As they continue to pick over the ruling handed down several months ago by Judge Cowdroy, the Court wonders if the appeal will actually solve the copyright infringement dispute between the sides.

For the third day, AFACT, representing the Village Roadshow and several Hollywood studios, and ISP iiNet were back in Federal Court for the appeal in their long-running copyright infringement dispute. Three judges will be required to decide the outcome – should iiNet be held accountable for copyright infringements carried out by its customers?

Yesterday, lawyers for AFACT argued that iiNet had the power to stop its customers infringing on the rights of the studios represented by the anti-piracy group.

Today, iiNet lawyer Richard Cobden detailed why the ISP had not acted on the copyright infringement notices it received from AFACT. He also questioned whether by receiving infringement notifications but doing nothing with them, the ISP should then be considered as an authorizer of those reported infringements.

Referring back to iiNet’s assertion yesterday that disconnecting customers would not be a “reasonable” response to infringement notices, Cobden said that AFACT never asked for a graduated response, only account terminations on the basis of its evidence – evidence which iiNet says is of questionable reliability.

Justice Arthur Emmett went on to voice concerns that the appeal in this case might never solve the dispute between the parties and that copyright infringement might continue whatever the outcome.

Emmett said that if iiNet’s assertion was accepted – that AFACT had failed to suggest “reasonable steps” the ISP could take in response to infringement notices – the anti-piracy group could simply submit new notices with new terms and then sue iiNet again.

“It just seems to me that out there is a commercial solution and there’s nothing we can do that will ultimately resolve this problem,” said Emmett.

However, as noted here, discussions between AFACT, ISPs and the Internet Industry Association (IIA) on the possible introduction of a code of conduct for dealing with infringement took place in 2007 and 2008. Those discussions effectively ended after AFACT announced action against iiNet.

The appeal continues.

Article from: TorrentFreak.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)