Saturday, January 8, 2011

TorrentFreak Email Update

TorrentFreak Email Update

Biggest Ever BitTorrent Piracy Settlement is Intriguing

Posted: 07 Jan 2011 01:41 PM PST

In a lawsuit filed December 20th in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, pornographic movie studio Liberty Media Holdings, owner of the Corbin Fisher trademark, claimed that a BitTorrent user had infringed their copyrights by uploading several of their movies to the Internet.

Liberty Media, who according to court papers identified torrent user Mr Schwaller through his IP address, claimed that he had uploaded six sample movies “to thousands of other individuals.” Furthermore, they also claimed that Schwaller was not a plain BitTorrent user but actually “one of the primary sources of the stolen Corbin Fisher works circulating on the Internet.”

Claiming willful and intentional infringement, Liberty Media requested an injunction against Schwaller forbidding him from sharing any further copyright works, now or in the future. They also asked for damages, costs and attorney’s fees.

A summons was issued the very next day and then, just 72 hours later and as if by magic, it was all over. According to a consent judgment filed December 24th, Liberty Media and the defendant had quickly resolved all disputes between them.

In a 19 point background summary, it was agreed that Schwaller “illegally copied and distributed many” Liberty movies to various torrent sites and by doing so he should have known that he would cause economic harm in California – the home of Liberty Media and the place where the original complaint was filed.

It was further agreed that the acts constituted “intentional and/or willful infringement of the Plaintiffís copyrights,” causing $500,000 in actual damages. That amount was halved to $250,000 for the purposes of the settlement.

So the big question is this: Why would someone agree to such a huge settlement amount – probably the biggest there’s ever been in a file-sharing case – seemingly without any kind of legal battle?

In part the answer almost certainly lies in simple math. Last year, a jury found student Joel Tenenbaum guilty of "willful infringement" and awarded damages mounting to $675,000. That was later deemed to be an excessive amount and was reduced to $67,500, still a significant amount but altogether more manageable.

But there is also another element to the settlement worthy of note. This paragraph:

Defendant has an opportunity to reduce the amount payable to Plaintiff if Defendant ceases any further content theft (whether the Plaintiffís content or anyone elses), and if he makes regular payments toward the judgment on a schedule which will be agreed upon between the parties in a separate settlement agreement.

So, one might reasonably conclude that this is a “good behavior” clause, and one which will bring the settlement down to an altogether more manageable and realistic amount. An amount painful enough to deter further infringement and enough to cover Liberty Media’s costs.

It has long been believed that in both the United States and Europe, the mere threat of a highly public court case involving pornographic material might be the greatest boost to achieving a quick financial settlement.

But this theory has nearly always been aimed at the turn-piracy-into-profit motives of so-called “copyright trolls” and it has to be said, in this case the plaintiff shows no sign of that kind of behavior with one defendant in one lawsuit.

The actions of Liberty Media show that what the company wants is the metaphorical head on a pike, the super-painful $250,000 “biggest ever” settlement headline that will deter others from uploading their material to the Internet in future.

However, one perhaps unintended side-effect is that this settlement, even though it will ultimately turn out to be substantially smaller than the quarter of a million headline grabber, will almost certainly be touted by copyright trolls to “encourage” those they target in mass litigation to pay up. They are, in fact, very different animals.

Article from: TorrentFreak, Covering Torrent Sites and News since 2005.

Claim: ISP Identified Non-Subscriber In Troubled File-Sharing Case

Posted: 07 Jan 2011 07:38 AM PST

In September last year, the email archives of ACS:Law, the UK law firm which pursued thousands of Internet users for alleged breaches of copyright on file-sharing networks, were spilled onto the Internet. In addition to the inner workings of ACS:Law being laid bare, many thousands of Internet subscribers accused by the company had their names, addresses and accusations of sharing pornography revealed too.

Surveillance and privacy watchdog Privacy International (PI) immediately notified the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) of this event in the belief that ACS:Law had breached the Data Protection Act with its mishandling of data handed to it by Internet service providers including BSkyB and BT.

In late December 2010, PI released their annual activity report and tucked away on page 23 is the following text which confirms their earlier announcement that they would pursue ACS:Law.

Commenced exploratory proceedings for legal action against law firms involved in file sharing prosecutions. Filed official complaint with ICO regarding the ACS:Law data breach and receiving complaints from individuals who were victims of the breach.

However, it is followed by another interesting statement, this time involving BSkyB.

Wrote statement of claim for an injunction against NPO [Norwich Pharamacal (disclosure) Orders] data after discovering BSkyB had contaminated data they sent to ACS:Law, currently working with barristers to file for injunction in the high court.

For legal reasons Privacy International declined to comment further, but information obtained by TorrentFreak outlines the basis for PI’s concerns surrounding the data supplied to ACS:Law by BSkyB.

The claim is that following the ACS:Law leak, an individual contacted PI explaining that their details had been leaked onto the Internet as part of the breach. Furthermore, ACS:Law had sent a letter with allegations of infringement of copyright on a pornographic movie with the usual offer to settle for cash. This letter was followed by a second, both of which asked for £495 to make the matter go away.

But there seems to have been a problem. Although its alleged that the person being accused had previously been a broadband subscriber with BSkyB, its claimed that the individual’s Internet subscription was terminated in 2007, some two years before the date of the alleged infringement.

The individual being accused by ACS:Law had, however, remained a customer of BSkyB but not for broadband Internet services. At the time of the alleged infringement the individual was a satellite TV subscriber with BSkyB, but a broadband customer of another supplier, BT.

This week TorrentFreak pointed out the Privacy International report to BSkyB along with an outline of the allegations and gave the company the opportunity to respond.

"Neither the customer nor Privacy International have formally contacted Sky to provide evidence of this alleged incident or to complain about our handling of their data. However, we have contacted PI to request more information. In the meantime, and in light of no substantive information or evidence, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further on this allegation," a Sky spokesperson told us.

Quite how far direct discussions between Privacy International and BSkyB can go on this matter remains to be seen. The Sky subscriber at the center of the claims has asked PI not to disclose their details to a 3rd party and PI are still investigating legal action through the High Court against BSkyB.

PI have, however, been in touch with Sky to say that the customer did indeed lodge a complaint via the company’s customer support center.

“I will say that if you check your support logs you should be able to find more information as the victim contacted your support team directly to explain that you had passed on their details to ACS:Law despite them not being a Sky Broadband subscriber – however, your support team refused to discuss the matter with the victim,” Privacy International’s Alexander Hanff wrote to the company today.

For their part, Sky feel that all necessary precautions have been taken.

"Sky makes every effort to ensure it provides accurate information when complying with Court Orders. It does this by carrying out a number of checks against the IP session reported within the Order. If there's any degree of uncertainty, the details are not supplied."

For the countless individuals who believe that they have been wrongly accused by ACS:Law, this case will certainly be one to watch.

Article from: TorrentFreak, Covering Torrent Sites and News since 2005.

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)