TorrentFreak Email Update |
- RIAA Starts Going After BitTorrent Sites
- MPAA, RIAA Team Up With ISPs to ‘Alert’ Pirates
- IFPI Boss Quits Following Tax Fraud Allegations
| RIAA Starts Going After BitTorrent Sites Posted: 08 Jul 2011 03:09 AM PDT
Unlike their counterparts at the MPAA, BitTorrent sites have not been prime targets for the recording industry association’s lawyers. However, recent court filings obtained by TorrentFreak show that the RIAA might have just changed course. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has granted a request from the RIAA to subpoena the privacy protection services utilized by three large torrent sites. The site owners use these services to hide their personal details from otherwise publicly available WHOIS domain records, but the RIAA wants to know who they are dealing with. The targeted sites are Monova.org, Bitsnoop.com and Limetorrents.com, which all have hundreds of thousands of daily visitors. According to the RIAA, these sites are infringing on the copyrights of many artists. “We believe your service is hosting the above-referenced website on its network. This website offers direct links to files containing sound recordings for other users to download by such artists as Lady Gaga, Micheal Jackson, Coldplay, Madonna and Kanye West,” the RIAA writes in a letter to Whoisguard.com. “As stated in the attached subpoena, you are required to disclose to the RIAA information sufficient to identify the infringer. This would include the individual’s IP-address and e-mail address,” the RIAA adds. One of the torrent site operators targeted by the RIAA told TorrentFreak that the subpoena comes as a surprise. He always responded swiftly to RIAA’s DMCA requests while the court documents suggest that he hasn’t been cooperative at all. “The RIAA has sent us several DMCA requests in the past and we always honored these,” Bitsnoop’s owner informed us. “Apparently that wasn’t enough, so now they pull this stunt.” At this point it is unknown what the RIAA is planning to do once they obtain the personal information of the site’s owners. Although it could theoretically be the beginning of a full-fledged litigation campaign against the torrent sites, it seems more likely that the subpoenas will be used to pressure and threaten operators. During the past year several music industry associations in Europe and Asia have sent requests to domain registrars with a similar objective. The ultimate goal is to make it harder for BitTorrent site operators to continue their business by putting pressure on them, and the companies that provide services to these sites. A good example is the following sentence in the letter to Whoisguard.com, which goes far beyond the attached subpoena for information. “We are asking for your immediate assistance in stopping this [linking to torrent files] unauthorized activity. Specifically, we request that you remove the infringing files from the system, or that you disable access to the infringing files, and that you inform the site operator of the illegality or his or her conduct.” Whatever the true motivation of the RIAA is, with the recent news about domain seizures, extradition requests and these recent subpoenas, operating a BitTorrent site has become a stressful job. Whether this will have the desired outcome for the music industry group in the long run remains to be seen. TorrentFreak asked the RIAA to comment on our finding but we have not received a response. RIAA’s Limetorrents Subpoena |
| MPAA, RIAA Team Up With ISPs to ‘Alert’ Pirates Posted: 07 Jul 2011 01:12 PM PDT
At the center of their plan is a system to notify and educate suspected copyright infringers by sending them so-called ‘copyright alerts’. According to the participants, including the MPAA, RIAA and all major ISPs, the warning system is likely to result in a massive decrease in online piracy in the U.S. All partners stress, however, that the agreement is merely a ‘common framework’ to deal with copyright infringements and it doesn’t oblige ISPs to disconnect users’ Internet access. So what the plan? The new agreement will streamline the current avalanche of DMCA notices Internet providers are already forwarding to their customers. A third-party will monitor file-sharing networks and collect the IP-addresses of suspected infringers. These will then be added to a database and forwarded to the Internet provider who will send a corresponding copyright alert. This alert will inform the Internet subscriber that his or her account was allegedly used to share copyrighted content, and how to prevent this from happening in the future. If the same IP-address is spotted again a similar alert will be sent, and only after 5 ‘strikes’ will the Internet provider take action. The ISPs have several options on how to deal with repeat infringers. One of the suggestions is to slow down their connection speed, but ISPs may also temporarily redirect the customer to a landing page which offers instructions on how to engage in a friendly and educational chat with the abuse department. Before any of the above sanctions go into effect Internet subscribers have the right to call for an independent review at the cost of a $35 filing fee. But will it be effective? Not really. First of all this agreement only covers a few of the many sources of online piracy. The millions of U.S. Internet users who download via cyberlockers are not affected by this agreement at all, as these downloads are impossible to track by third parties. The same is true for the many online streaming portals which have become very popular recently. The agreement is mainly targeted at BitTorrent users, but these can also bypass the copyright alerts quite easily. Signing up for a VPN or proxy does the trick, and the same is probably true for more obscure private BitTorrent trackers which are less likely to be monitored. A recent survey in France, where Internet users can actually lose their connection, revealed that the new agreement might not be worth the cost. Only 4% of the polled file-sharers said they stopped sourcing music from illegal services out of fear of detection. In the UK, a recent survey by an ISP revealed similar results. Despite the relative ease with which copyright infringers can bypass the warning system and the lack of deterrence, all parties involved are ecstatic about the new agreement. "This groundbreaking agreement ushers in a new day and a fresh approach to addressing the digital theft of copyrighted works," RIAA’s Cary Sherman trumpeted in a comment. We have our doubts. |
| IFPI Boss Quits Following Tax Fraud Allegations Posted: 07 Jul 2011 08:17 AM PDT
The pair would not be paid by the IFPI, but by a company called IPGate. This company was originally set up to exploit the intellectual property rights of a German inventor family but it also did a lot of work for IFPI. The Zurich-based boss of IPGate and the CEO of IFPI had something in common – they were the same man, Beat Högger. The secretarial appointments went ahead as planned, but why would IFPI want to have their employees working for another company? According to a reference in its own documents, the aim was “tax optimization”. In Germany during mid-April 2010, IPGate applied for “exemption from domestic income tax deduction” but in order to achieve this status it would need to prove that it was active in Switzerland. By having a couple of employees on board, let’s say a couple of secretaries for example, that requirement would be more easily fulfilled. According to journalist Christian Bütikofer, who uncovered this developing story earlier in the year, in October 2010 the Federal Central Tax Office in Bonn, Germany, subsequently granted IPGate a tax deduction of 316,500 euros. IPGate had been doing significant amounts of work for IFPI. They managed performing rights revenue through SwissPeform, a company that also employs IFPI chief Beat Högger. IPGate also regulated the Swiss music charts and handled the annual Swiss Music Awards. IFPI now claim that Beat Högger arranged this business without their permission. Högger has now resigned his position at IFPI Switzerland and his board members are trying to distance themselves from his actions, but according to journalist Christian Bütikofer, that probably won’t be possible. When Högger wanted to employ the pair of secretaries in 2009 he necessarily sought the permission of his fellow board members. Those discussions took place during a conference call between Högger, Ivo Sacchi of Universal, Julie Born of Sony, Ueli Bracher of Music Sales, Stefan Grulert of EMI and Martin Schiess of K-Tel and Victor Waldburger of Phonag. The proposal gained approval with two exceptions. Victor Waldburger disapproved of the appointments while Ivo Sacchi abstained from the vote, but whatever the outcome IFPI knew that the secretaries would be working at IPGate. Through a spokesman IFPI say they were unaware “that IPGate may have had the intention to act illegally against the German tax authorities” but they are also denying that the board agreed to contract IPGate to carry out the other responsibilities outlined above. According to IFPI the agreement was “signed by the CEO [Beat Högger] alone and without the knowledge of the Board.” All agreements between IPGate and IFPI have now been terminated but the tax investigation continues. |
Historically the RIAA’s litigation campaigns have focused mainly on 
As 
During 2009, the IFPI in Switzerland was undergoing restructuring and as part of that appointed Beat Högger as its new CEO. He had a plan to employ two secretaries, but with a twist.| 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