TorrentFreak Email Update |
- LimeWire Pays RIAA $105 Million, Artists Get Nothing
- Scottish File-Sharing Conviction Dismays OiNK and FileSoup Lawyer
- Comcast Offers Help to The Pirate Bay, Problems Fixed
- Movie Streamers Line Up Heavyweight Lawyers To Fight MPAA
| LimeWire Pays RIAA $105 Million, Artists Get Nothing Posted: 13 May 2011 02:52 AM PDT
The evidence further showed that LimeWire marketed its application to Napster users and that its business model depended on mass copyright infringements. Following the injunction LimeWire immediately disabled its file-sharing client, but the trouble for the company was far from over. Record labels and music publishers kept chasing LimeWire demanding compensation for the losses they claim the file-sharing service operator had caused. The labels calculated that the company behind the popular file-sharing client owed them up to a billion dollars, and they filed a claim to collect it. Last week, a New York federal jury trial started, but before this came to an end the two parties agreed to settle the case for $105 million. The RIAA brought in 9,715 tracks as evidence, which means that the amount translates to $10,808 per track instead of the maximum $150,000 the jury could have awarded. The labels are obviously pleased with the outcome of the case. They’ve successfully argued that LimeWire caused both them and their artists significant losses. "The resolution of this case is another milestone in the continuing evolution of online music to a legitimate marketplace that appropriately rewards creators," RIAA Chairman Mitch Bainwol said in a comment. Too bad, however, that the RIAA isn’t sharing any of the ‘damages’ with the artists, to reward them. Despite presenting thousands of artists as victims in the case, none of them are expected to see any of the settlement money in their bank accounts anytime soon. RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy previously told TorrentFreak that the 'damages' accrued from piracy-related lawsuits will not go to any of the artists, but towards funding more anti-piracy campaigns. "Any funds recouped are re-invested into our ongoing education and anti-piracy programs," he said. Thus far the RIAA has not announced officially how the LimeWire settlement will be spent, but we don’t expect them to steer away from their previous course. This makes today’s decision on compensation a victory for the major labels, but certainly not one for musicians. Source: LimeWire Pays RIAA $105 Million, Artists Get Nothing |
| Scottish File-Sharing Conviction Dismays OiNK and FileSoup Lawyer Posted: 13 May 2011 01:38 AM PDT This a guest feature from UK-based lawyer David Cook from Burrows Bussin Solicitors. Cook and Burrows Bussin successful defended a 17-year-old alleged uploader to the now-defunct music tracker OiNK, and a 56-year-old administrator of the BitTorrent forum, FileSoup. It was reported in the national media on Tuesday 10th May that Anne Muir, a 58 year old woman in Glasgow has pleaded guilty to criminal file-sharing offences, for which she will be sentenced later this month. Although not a party to that case, I believe that this is a stark reminder of where we are at. It seems to me that the media consciousness has been diverted by the Digital Economy Act 2010, and all that it entails. The infringement notification procedure and "technical measures" suggested for alleged file-sharers and website blocking has understandably caused great concern. However, the elephant in the room remains s.107 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA). This legislation is the source of the ability of the State to prosecute someone in a criminal court for a copyright offence. It is still possible for a criminal prosecution under CDPA, despite the availability of the civil remedies of which the public are now more than aware. The Digital Economy Act 2010 not only leaves the criminal copyright provisions unchanged, but, in fact, ups the ante. As well as the Crown Court having the power to impose a 10 year custodial sentence and an unlimited fine, the Digital Economy Act now gives the Magistrates Court the power to impose a £50,000 fine. Be under no illusions – people can and will continue to be prosecuted in criminal courts for file-sharing offences. Reports that the British Phonographic Industry and International Federation of the Phonographic Industry played a major role in the prosecution of Anne Muir are of great concern. In the recent OiNK case, in which we successfully defended a boy accused of similar file-sharing allegations, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry and British Phonographic Industry used their influence to gain entry to our client's family home, gather evidence and dictate the direction of inquiries. Despite Government ministers categorically stating they do not want to see teenagers arrested in their bedrooms for file-sharing, such assurances are evidently hollow. That prosecution was not only incompetently handled, it was also never in the public interest and the CPS were forced to admit that in March 2010 when they discontinued their case in the face of the rigorous and aggressive defence that we had forwarded. In February 2011, we had another case before the UK courts. Again, a rights-holder group was heavily involved in the prosecution. The FileSoup prosecution was aimed at the peer-to-peer distribution of films, so the Federation Against Copyright Theft was the relevant body. Again, we mounted a robust defence and, again, the CPS dropped the case, offering no evidence and allowing our client to be formally acquitted by the Crown Court Judge. It is of concern that our clients in the OiNK and FileSoup cases were members of the public whose alleged criminality appeared extremely limited. In OiNK, it was alleged that our client had found the music on one publicly accessible music site and simply moved it onto a members-only site (OiNK). In FileSoup, the prosecution was initially focused on a film (X-Men Origins: Wolverine) for which they had already prosecuted the person responsible for the real criminality in this case – the original leaker. That film was then circulated on the internet for a considerable period of time and its distribution was widespread. FACT then took the decision to prosecute a non-profit making community forum of film buffs. This FileSoup prosecution was clearly not directed at the person responsible for any loss or to blame for any leaks. The OiNK and FileSoup investigations were carried out almost entirely by the rights-holder groups, who then gave the police and CPS the evidence they sought to rely upon, in order to prosecute. However, the duty is on the police and the prosecuting authority to independently investigate alleged offences. It appears that they simply did not do so in those cases. The only people who had investigated were the rights-holder groups, who are not independent bodies. FACT, BPI and IFPI are funded by the media industries and it was they who controlled the OiNK and FileSoup investigations. Little or nothing independent was carried out by the police. The role of the rights-holder groups became effectively that of investigators, witnesses and experts in their own case. These internet sites are evidently, in the view of the rights-holders, encouraging breaches of copyright. While there is no doubt that a copyright holder is entitled to the protection of the law, it is nevertheless fundamental that a prosecution is conducted impartially and independently. This was not our experience in the OiNK and FileSoup cases. I only know about the case of Anne Muir from the media reports that have been published. However, I am willing to bet that the rights-holder groups have acted in a similar way in the prosecution of Muir. It was our view that the rights-holder groups target the people with the least chance of resisting a prosecution of this nature; those having made no commercial gain and often with little funds to defend such a case. They have prosecuted the very people who spend significant amounts of their time and money in pursuing their interests in music and film. It certainly appears that rights-holder groups are avoiding taking on those with funds at their disposal, perhaps for fear of them exposing the manner in the way in which these groups go about such investigations. It was only through a methodical and painstaking consideration of the evidence that we were able to draw the attention of the Court to the investigative failures and flawed evidence in the OiNK and FileSoup cases. It is reported that Anne Muir was not a leaker or a site administrator, but a simple file-sharer on the Direct Connect client. She therefore appears to be an unremarkable file-sharer – part of a class of people that must include the vast majority of UK citizens between the ages of 14 and 30. This legislation and series of cases seek to criminalise a large proportion of the youth of this country. The inequality in real terms is substantial. FACT, BPI and IFPI wield enormous financial resources and clout. They clearly do lobby Parliament and pressure prosecutors to take cases on their behalf. FileSoup and OiNK operated as forums for people with an interest in films and music and were not commercial or profit making organisations. Anne Muir was not alleged to have made any money from her file-sharing activities. FileSoup, OiNK and the prosecution of Muir were directed at people who are considered in the most vulnerable groups of society. Our OiNK client was a 17 year old boy. Our client in FileSoup was, due to illness, largely housebound in his flat in Scotland. Anne Muir is reported to have suffered mental health problems. These are the people who the mighty US film and music industries choose to pursue. The frustrating part is that it falls to the British tax payer to fund these prosecutions. The defence funding, also borne by the British tax payer, is based on a page count of disclosed material controlled by these rights-holders groups. In the OiNK and FileSoup cases, the funding we were able to receive was inadequate to cover the costs that we had incurred in defending the prosecutions. These are the conditions in which alleged file-sharers are supposed to defend against the limitless resources of the US media industries. As news of Anne Muir's conviction washes over an indifferent British public, the repercussions may eventually be felt as the rights-holder groups become more buoyant by their successes in Court and through their lobbying. With vast proportions of the UK public involved in file-sharing to some degree, who will be next? David Cook is a solicitor from Burrows Bussin Solicitors in Manchester. Source: Scottish File-Sharing Conviction Dismays OiNK and FileSoup Lawyer |
| Comcast Offers Help to The Pirate Bay, Problems Fixed Posted: 12 May 2011 02:18 PM PDT
A quick look at our web-analytics further revealed a bump in people searching Google for “thepiratebay down”. The majority of these people showed up as Comcast subscribers, which led us to conclude that something is up with the connection between The Pirate Bay and the Comcast network. This morning we wrote an article on the issue, mentioning that The Pirate Bay was trying to find the origin of the problem. The report didn’t go unnoticed by Comcast either. In a response to the issue Jason Livingood, Executive Director Internet Systems Engineering at Comcast, told TorrentFreak: "Please note that we do not block websites and we are NOT blocking The Pirate Bay." As stated in the original article, we never suspected an intentional blockade, but something was clearly wrong. Luckily, Comcast is there to help The Pirate Bay get back on track. Comcast has reached out to The Pirate Bay and set aside resources in case the BitTorrent site needs it. “I can have our engineers work directly with them to assist,” Jason Livingood told TorrentFreak. Initially The Pirate Bay team suspected that Comcast might be filtering PMTU responses, but Comcast looked into this and ruled it out. At the moment The Pirate Bay team is looking at other possibilities, but Comcast is confident that they’re not causing the problem. The Pirate Bay team prefers to keep the exact location of their core hardware somewhat of a mystery, and some of this network magic may conflict with Comcast at the moment. It’s expected that, with or without help from Comcast, the issues will be resolved soon. Update: Right before we finished this article, Comcast users were able to connect to The Pirate Bay again. The issue was reverse path filtering in a Tier1 network Comcast traffic went through. Comcast reached out to Serious Tubes Networks, who deliver transit to The Pirate Bay, and they were able to correct the issue. “Comcast emailed our NOC about their users complaining about not reaching The Pirate Bay. We resolved the issue and TPB can now be reached from ComCast,” the CEO of Serious Tubes Networks told TorrentFreak. Indeed, Comcast Cares. Source: Comcast Offers Help to The Pirate Bay, Problems Fixed |
| Movie Streamers Line Up Heavyweight Lawyers To Fight MPAA Posted: 12 May 2011 10:44 AM PDT Earlier this year a brand new streaming movie service appeared which repackaged and augmented something old in order to fill a gap in the market. The both brilliant and bizarre Zediva service allowed subscribers to watch movies online that are not available on services such as Netflix because they are still in the DVD sales window. A product of the movie industry's licensing rules put in place to avoid the cannibalization of DVD sales, Zediva allowed its subscribers to rent and view physical DVDs remotely using the Internet. Needless to say the MPAA weren’t amused and in early April they filed a lawsuit at the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. "Zediva illegally streams movies to its customers without obtaining required licenses from the movie studios," said the MPAA, adding that Zediva is little more than a “sham”.  But rather than roll over and die, perhaps surprisingly Zediva are fighting back. According to Paid Content, Zediva have hired a team of lawyers from “elite” San Francisco law firm, Durie Tangri. The team includes Joe Gratz, the lead attorney in the recent case of EFF/Augusto v Universal Music Group. Troy Augusto was sued by UMG for selling promo CDs on eBay and was represented by the EFF. He won the case, affirming an eBay seller’s right to resell promotional CDs bought from secondhand stores. Also on the team is file-sharing expert Michael Page. He was lead counsel for Grokster in their epic battle against the record labels and studios, representing them at district, Ninth Circuit, and Supreme Court levels. For this he received the California Lawyer Attorney of the Year award for 2005. Also on the team is Mark Lemley who commands a place in countless lists of “most-admired” Intellectual Property lawyers. An author of six books, Lemley is a founding partner of Durie Tangri, a veteran of cases involving Comcast, Google, Grokster and NetFlix, and has taught intellectual property law to both federal and state judges. As detailed by Paid Content, the MPAA aren’t taking any chances either. They’ve hired a team from Munger, Tolles & Olson which includes Glenn Pomerantz and Kelly Klaus – lawyers currently engaged in beating up LimeWire. Source: Movie Streamers Line Up Heavyweight Lawyers To Fight MPAA |
According to the injunction that 
Yesterday TorrentFreak received several emails from worried Comcast subscribers who could no longer load their favorite BitTorrent site, The Pirate Bay.| You are subscribed to email updates from TorrentFreak To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment