Friday, November 19, 2010

TorrentFreak Email Update

TorrentFreak Email Update

Senate Committee Passes Bill To Quash Pirate Websites

Posted: 18 Nov 2010 01:17 PM PST

The U.S. Senate's Judicial Committee unanimously passed the controversial 'Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act' today, a bill that could be used to crack down on many BitTorrent sites and other file-sharing platforms. The bill would give the Department of Justice the unprecedented power to take over domain names of websites that are deemed to facilitate copyright infringement.

As was demonstrated earlier this year, taking the domains of suspected sites has proven to be a highly effective tool to shut down sites that are considered illegal. In September, a group of U.S. senators proposed legislation to make this a standard procedure, and today the Senate’s Judicial Committee unanimously supported the bill.

Before it becomes law the bill will have to be approved by the Senate and Congress, which has to happen quickly because a new Congress will be seated in January.

If signed into law, the ‘Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act’ (COICA) would allow the Department of Justice to file a civil lawsuit against the domain owners. If the courts then decide that a site is indeed promoting copyright infringement, the DOJ can order the domain registrar to take the domain offline. The bill is not limited to domestics offenders, but also allows the DOJ to target foreign domain owners.

The targets of the bill could possibly include many BitTorrent sites. Last week both the MPAA and RIAA submitted their wishlists of “rogue websites” that should be taken care of, and these included The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, Demonoid and other popular torrent sites.

Although none of the operators of these sites will be happy with the new legislation, Demonoid has been opposing COICA in public, asking its members to take action.

“If passed, this law will allow the government, under the command of the media companies, to censor the internet as they see fit, like China and Iran do, with the difference that the sites they decide to censor will be completely removed from the internet and not just in the US,” a message on the Demonoid homepage reads.

Aside from classic 'pirate' websites, the bill also conveniently provides an effective backdoor to take the whistleblower site Wikileaks offline, or its domain at least. After all, Wikileaks has posted thousands of files that are owned by the United States.

If the bill is accepted it will change the Internet and how domain names are controlled for good. Thus far, no central government has the power to take over domains. This power belongs exclusively to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

Over the last weeks, several digital rights groups including the EFF have voiced their concerns over the new legislation, calling it an “unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech and a threat to innovation” and claiming it “would break the Internet.”

The protests and opposition are expected to continue during the next weeks, but meanwhile the RIAA and MPAA are applauding the Government’s actions.

Article from: TorrentFreak.

Anti-Piracy Lawyers Knew They Targeted Innocent Victims

Posted: 18 Nov 2010 06:01 AM PST

Davenport Lyons, the law firm which pioneered the lucrative file-sharing pay-up-or-else scheme in the UK, will head off to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings next year. According to details just made available, among other things Davenport Lyons partners were responsible for knowingly targeting the innocent and relied on unreliable evidence in doing so.

Back in 2007 when law firm Davenport Lyons went to the press with news of their “landmark” court victory against a woman they accused of illicit file-sharing, they had high hopes of great things to follow.

The case, which turned out to be something of a damp squib, was the metaphorical head-on-a-pike the company needed to kick-start a new scheme.

The plan was simple enough. Capture IP-addresses of alleged file-sharers, discover their identities through the courts and send them letters demanding money to make non-existent court cases and huge fines go away. Profit.

However, with the help of online forums and consumer groups like Which? and BeingThreatened.com, letter recipients mounted an impressive fight back. Instead of continuing ahead unhindered, Davenport Lyons found themselves the subject of a Solicitors Regulatory Authority investigation. The SRA later referred the case to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

That hearing will go ahead in May next year, but thanks to papers seen by the Solicitors Journal, today we have a sneak preview of the claims being made against partners David Gore and Brian Miller.

According to the SRA, Gore and Miller – who have since left the company – were responsible for litigating against thousands of Internet users they claim were illegal file-sharers, even though they were aware that they had no reliable evidence to support their claims.

"Each of the respondents knew that in conducting generic campaigns against those identified as IP holders whose IP numeric had been used for downloading or uploading of material that they might in such generic campaigns be targeting people innocent of any copyright breach," says the SRA’s statement.

Interestingly, although Davenport Lyons and their copyright-holding partners in this business such as Topware, DigiProtect, CodeMasters, Reality Pump, Techland and Atari were all in these schemes together and knew precisely how they operate, the SRA has decided that Gore and Miller put the interests of Davenport Lyons before the interests of their clients.

By sending out letters to people they knew could be innocent, Gore and Miller disregarded the harm their actions could have on their clients’ reputations. This constituted a breach of the Solicitors Code of Conduct say the SRA. For those familiar with how these schemes operate, the irony here is overwhelming.

Furthermore, as has become apparent in recent months through various leaked documents, around 20 to 35% of letter recipients paid Davenport Lyons the money they asked for. The SRA claims that Gore and Miller encouraged litigation in order to secure revenue for their company.

Referring to a letter Davenport Lyons sent to one of its clients where it was discussed how money would be shared, the SRA statement says: "The reference to 'revenue share' indicates that the respondents were regarding the scheme which they were operating as a revenue generating scheme."

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal hearing will go ahead in May 2011 and will last for 7 days. ACS:Law owner Andrew Crossley will be watching more closely than most – the date when he has to face the Tribunal is yet to be decided.

Article from: TorrentFreak.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)