TorrentFreak Email Update

U.S. To Introduce Draconian Anti-Piracy Censorship Bill
23,322 Expendables Downloaders Accused in BitTorrent’s Biggest Lawsuit
ACS:Law Pleads Poverty, Gets Tiny Fine For Data Breach
IP Address Leads Police To World’s Unluckiest File-Sharer

U.S. To Introduce Draconian Anti-Piracy Censorship Bill

Posted: 11 May 2011 04:38 AM PDT

censored Internet censorship is a hot topic this year.

During the past 12 months the U.S. Government seized more than 100 domain names it claimed were promoting copyright infringement. But this was just the beginning. The domain seizures pale in comparison to a bill that’s about to be introduced by U.S. lawmakers.

Dubbed the PROTECT IP Act, the bill will introduce a wide-scale of censorship tools authorities and copyright holders can use to quash websites they claim are facilitating copyright infringement. It is basically a revamped and worsened version of the controversial COICA proposal which had to be resubmitted after its enaction failed last year.

The summary of the bill begins with a recital of the now-standard industry claims about the financial harm caused by copyright infringement. Claims that interestingly enough were put in doubt by the U.S. Government last year, but are still used to push anti-piracy legislation through globally.

“Copyright infringement and the sale of counterfeit goods are reported to cost American creators and producers billions of dollars and to result in hundreds of thousands in lost jobs annually. This pervasive problem has assumed an especially threatening form on the Internet,” the bill document reads.

It is further explained that the PROTECT IP Act is needed as an extension of the already controversial domain seizures. As reported previously, it is now relatively easy for a seized website to continue operating under a new non-US based domain name. With the new bill, however, the authorities and copyright holders have a broader scale of tools they can use.

“The Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act ("PROTECT IP Act") authorizes the Justice Department to file a civil action against the registrant or owner of a domain name that accesses a foreign Internet site, or the foreign-registered domain name itself, and to seek a preliminary order from the court that the site is dedicated to infringing activities,” the document continues.

In case a domain is not registered or controlled by a U.S. company, the authorities can also order search engines to remove the website from its search results, order ISPs to block the website, and order ad-networks and payment processors to stop providing services to the website in question.

“If the court issues an order against the registrant, owner, or domain name, resulting from the DOJ-initiated suit, the Attorney General is authorized to serve that order on specified U.S. based third-parties, including Internet service providers, payment processors, online advertising network providers, and search engines. These third parties would then be required to take appropriate action to either prevent access to the Internet site, or cease doing business with the Internet site.”

Although the above is already quite far-reaching, the bill also allows for private copyright holders to use some of the same tools as the Government. Without due process, copyright holders can obtain a court order to prevent payment providers and ad-networks from doing business with sites that allegedly facilitate copyright infringement. Unlike the DOJ, copyright holders can not obtain orders to block sites through ISPs or search engines.

The summary of the bill does not go into the constitutional issues that arise with several of the measures. However, it ensures that the legislation is in the best interest of the public by protecting people from any website that "endangers the public health." The only protection for accused websites is that they can “petition the court to suspend or vacate the order,” but lessons from the previous domain seizures show that this process can take up several months.

The PROTECT IP Act is expected to be officially introduced in the coming weeks, and more details will be released at the time. Sources close to the U.S Government say the bill has already gathered a lot of support among legislators, which is a worrying message for the relatively free-Internet as its known today.

PROTECT IP Act Summary

Source: U.S. To Introduce Draconian Anti-Piracy Censorship Bill

23,322 Expendables Downloaders Accused in BitTorrent’s Biggest Lawsuit

Posted: 10 May 2011 12:38 PM PDT

expendables Since 2010 the United States Copyright Group (USCG) has sued tens of thousands of BitTorrent users who allegedly shared films without the consent of copyright holders.

Their aim is never to take any of the cases to court, but to get alleged infringers to pay a substantial cash settlement to make legal action go away.

Recognizing the potential profitability of the scheme, which some equal to extortion, other law firms across the country were quick to replicate the strategy. While these newcomers mostly focused on adult content, USCG stuck to more mainstream film producers such as the makers of The Hurt Locker.

In February of this year the lawyers filed a new mass lawsuit on behalf of another major client, Nu Image, the studio behind the action flick The Expendables. Initially this case included 6,500 John Doe defendants, but this group has now expanded to a massive 23,322 sharers, making it the biggest BitTorrent lawsuit ever.

After filing the initial suit USCG and their tracking partner kept scouring the Internet for more BitTorrent users who were sharing the film. With hundreds and thousands of copies still being shared in recent months, the pool of potential defendants was almost endless. Thousands of these individuals have now been added to the original lawsuit, adding the total number up to 23,322.

Those who wonder what the motive of the movie is to start this massive case only has to look at the revenue potential. A simple calculation shows that the profit can be enormous. If only 75 percent of all defendants pay a $2,000 settlement, the plaintiffs would earn more than $35 million, which equals more than a third of the total box office grosses ($103 million) in the US.

The chances of this happening are not slim either.

Contrary to several other cases we reported on lately, the District Court of Columbia gave the green light to subpoena the ISPs for the personal details of the account holders associated with the ‘infringing’ IP-addresses. This means that in due time these defendants will receive a settlement proposal in their mailboxes.

The question USCG lawyers will ask these alleged defendants is simple, and something along those lines:

“Pay us $2,000 to make the trouble go away, or we will get you involved in an expensive legal battle where we may demand $150,000.”

The full 371 page list of the ‘suspected’ IP-addresses can be found below.

Alleged The Expendables downloaders

Source: 23,322 Expendables Downloaders Accused in BitTorrent’s Biggest Lawsuit

ACS:Law Pleads Poverty, Gets Tiny Fine For Data Breach

Posted: 10 May 2011 07:56 AM PDT

In an announcement today, the UK’s Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has revealed that Andrew Crossley, the former boss of ACS:Law, has been handed a penalty for his failure to ensure the security of sensitive data held on their computer systems.

As readers will be aware, last year the company succeeding in spilling the details of around 6,000 Internet subscribers onto an unprotected web page following a Denial of Service attack carried out by Anonymous.

"This case proves that a company's failure to keep information secure can have disastrous consequences. Sensitive personal details relating to thousands of people were made available for download to a worldwide audience and will have caused them embarrassment and considerable distress,” said Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham.

“The security measures ACS Law had in place were barely fit for purpose in a person's home environment, let alone a business handling such sensitive details.”

The ICO revealed that Crossley did not obtain professional advice when setting up his systems, didn’t operate a firewall and used a web-hosting package intended for domestic users.

So how much, exactly, will be Crossley expected to pay for this complete failure to live up to his obligations? According to Graham, ACS:Law’s fine would have been £200,000 given the severity of their conduct, but there are mitigating circumstances.

"Penalties are a tool for achieving compliance with the law and, as set out in our criteria, we take people's circumstances and their ability to pay into account," Graham continued.

That’s a long-winded way of saying that Crossley is insisting he’s broke, so he can’t pay. Which is interesting.

PC Pro are reporting that they asked the ICO if they had taken steps to verify Crossley’s financial status but are yet to receive a response. Maybe the following will help.

Only last year Crossley was boasting of being a resident of Monaco and you need a few quid knocking around to achieve that. His taste in expensive cars has been well documented too. But there’s more.

Some time ago TorrentFreak acquired a copy of a document dated October 2010 where Crossley swore to a court that he had a “thriving and successful law firm” (this is after the data breach) that had collected more than £1.5 million in settlements. We know, from recent court proceedings, that he was collecting 65% of money recovered. You can do the math.

In the document Crossley also swore to jointly owning a £750,000 home and having £200,000 of work in progress at ACS:Law, yet now we are expected to believe that Crossley can only afford to pay £1,000 in fines.

That’s equivalent to just two of the £500 settlements he expected Internet users to cough up for the alleged sharing of a single 3rd rate movie, based on claims that were so weak that neither he nor his clients were prepared to see them through to conclusion in court. Yet he collected these settlements from thousands.

Disappointing decision by the ICO? You bet.

Source: ACS:Law Pleads Poverty, Gets Tiny Fine For Data Breach

IP Address Leads Police To World’s Unluckiest File-Sharer

Posted: 10 May 2011 04:59 AM PDT

For years now, particularly in light of increased monitoring of file-sharing networks, subsequent lawsuits and pay-up-or-else schemes, one particular argument has persistently raised its head.

That argument is simple, although some like to make it more complex than it is. In a file-sharing context, an IP address does not identify a person, at best it merely identifies an Internet connection. Nevertheless, countless Internet subscribers have been accused of infringements they have not committed, merely because their name is on the bill.

However, a developing case in Sweden shows that while tracking down the subscriber behind an IP address, it’s also possible to arrest and prosecute someone completely different.

In December last year a guy identified only as ‘Martin’ answered a ringing doorbell. Having played video games all night he was half asleep, arriving at the door wrapped in a blanket. Three people were outside and one of them was showing his police badge.

“At first I thought something had happened, but pretty soon they explained that it was about file sharing,” Martin told Swedish news outlet NVP.

But the police weren’t there for Martin, they were looking for the bill payer. However, he was abroad and Martin was there just as a house sitter, watering plants and feeding fish.

With the police presence expanding to five officers, network cables were disconnected, hard drives and computers seized. Despite having no initial interest in Martin, one of the computers they decided to seize was his.

Then a few weeks ago Martin was summoned to a interview with the police. There he discovered that an inspection of his computer had revealed 200 downloaded movies and he was now being pursued for illegal file-sharing.

The prosecutor in the case, Frederick Ingblad, who is also deeply involved in most of Sweden’s other file-sharing cases, admitted that they were originally looking for someone else, but Martin just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

“It is now suspected that he downloaded and uploaded particular films,” Ingblad explained.

Both individuals now stand accused of copyright infringement and their indictments are expected in the summer.

“My friends think that I had bad luck. I hardly know anyone who does not share files, since you have always been able to get what you want,” Martin said.

“Still,” he added, “I think the law is right.”

Source: IP Address Leads Police To World’s Unluckiest File-Sharer

loveislife

Pages

Wednesday, May 11, 2011