TorrentFreak Email Update |
- Aussie Attorney General Pressured on Three-Strikes Secrecy
- “Six Strikes” Results Show High Number of Persistent Pirates
- Movie Studios Seek to Freeze Kim Dotcom’s Assets
| Aussie Attorney General Pressured on Three-Strikes Secrecy Posted: 29 May 2014 04:04 AM PDT
This week, in a session of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, the topic was raised by Senator Scott Ludlam of the Australian Greens. With the Attorney General and his team sat immediately opposite him, Ludlam asked Brandis about current Government copyright policy. “Unlike the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, France and many other comparable countries, Australia lacks any effective protection against online piracy,” Brandis said. “Australia, I’m sorry to say, is the worst offender of any country in the world when it comes to piracy, and i’m very concerned that the legitimate rights and interests of rightsholders and content creators are being compromised by that activity.” Who is helping Brandis shape his anti-piracy opinions? “Where are you getting your information from to form your views, who are you consulting and through what vehicle are you forming your views that you’ve just presented to us?” Ludlam asked. “Well, those are my views. I mean, the views that I expressed in the speech to which you referred, legal and philosophical views in particular,” Brandis said. Ludlam then asked if consumer groups were being involved in the process, as is the case in the United States “strikes” system. “Have you spoken to any consumer groups, such as Choice or ACANN, who would probably contest your view that a graduated response or three-strikes or any of those kinds of propositions…..” A clearly irritated Brandis interrupted, but Ludlam wasn’t giving an inch, continuing: “….or any of those countries that you’ve just listed at the outset that do have some version of those schemes, that actually they’re not working very well in those jurisdictions and there might be other ways to tackle the problem more effectively, but still preserve artists’ rights to be paid for their work.” Avoiding answering the question again, Brandis said that he and his colleagues speak to stakeholders all the time. Answer the question – are consumer groups involved? “Does that include Choice, for example?” Ludlam persisted. Brandis said that his team has consulted with “industry leaders” in the United Kingdom and the United States to learn from their experiences. That wasn’t the answer Ludlam was looking for. “I know industry leaders have very strong views on these things, but i’m asking you about groups like Choice or ACANN or others that might represent consumer interests or the public interest,” he said. “There is a very strong public interest in the protection of private property and that includes the protection of intellectual property,” Brandis responded evasively. “So you’re not going to answer the question,” Ludlam said rhetorically. Clearly irritated with the line of questioning and despite being the one to interrupt, Brandis then gave Ludlam a mini lecture on not interrupting him and proceeded, again, not to answer the question. The Greens Senator wasn’t letting go. “Have you met with Choice or ACAN in the process of forming your views?” he insisted. As the exchange continued it became very clear indeed that while Brandis was pretty sharp on how his discussions had gone with “stake holders”, he was vague on any discussions with groups that should be involved to protect the public interest. Is three-strikes still on the agenda? Switching towards a member of Brandis’ team, Ludlam asked directly whether or not the Government’s copyright task group was looking at a three-strikes style regime to deal with online piracy? “Yes, that’s one option,” came the response. However, while the option is being considered, the Government clearly faces problems. In response to Ludlam asking whether talks were underway between rightsholders and service providers, a member of Brandis’ team gave a one word answer: “No.” The problem, the Attorney General said, stemmed back from the iiNet ruling in 2012. Since then there had been less willingness on the part of some ISPs to come to the table. However, one ISP has been very helpful lately. “Earlier in the month I had a very long conversation [with executives from] Telstra. If I may say so publicly I would say that Telstra’s contribution to this issue, and their willingness to work to find a solution to the piracy issue, which is really unaddressed in Australia, has been very commendable,” Brandis said. “We want to see if the various industry participants can be brought to the table and find themselves in agreement rather than having a solution imposed from on high.” So who is pulling the strings, who is making the decisions? And then, just before the end of the session, Brandis undermined confidence in government transparency again in response to Ludlam’s questioning on how the issue would now be progressed. “The matter is under active consideration right now. I had a meeting with certain decision makers in this matter as recently as 7pm last night,” Brandis said. So who are those key decision makers? “I’m not going to be disclosing in a public forum who I meet with, senator,” Brandis told Ludlam. With anonymous “stake holders” and “decision makers” commanding Brandis’ ear, no consumer groups front and center, and only Telsta, the part-owner of pay TV company Foxtel, worthy of praise on the ISP front, a voluntary agreement on strikes in Australia seems as far away as ever. Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.    |
| “Six Strikes” Results Show High Number of Persistent Pirates Posted: 28 May 2014 01:11 PM PDT
These efforts are part of the Copyright Alert System, an anti-piracy plan that aims to educate the public. Through a series of warnings suspected pirates are informed that their connections are being used to share copyrighted material without permission, and told where they can find legal alternatives. These alerts start out friendly in tone, but serious repeat infringers face a temporary disconnection from the Internet or other mitigation measures. The ISPs and copyright holders believe that the voluntary agreement is effective, but experts have their doubts. According to a report released today by the Center for Copyright Information (CCI which oversees the program, the Copyright Alert System has had a significant effect. For the first time the group has published actual numbers, covering the first ten months of the program ending December last year. As can be seen in the table below, 722,820 account holders received a first strike or copyright alert. Of this group, nearly 30% were caught again, generating a second alert. A total of 60,477 subscribers were particularly persistent and reached the mitigation phase after their fifth alert, which is 8% of everyone who received at least one warning. Around 1.3 million notices were sent out during the first 10 months, a number that will double in the coming year according to the report.  It is relatively hard to interpret these numbers, but the repeat warning percentage of 30% is quite high, especially when one takes into account that people who received their first alert during the last month had little time to generate a second one. In addition, the detection rate is relatively low, not to mention subscribers’ use of anonymizing tools. It appears that U.S. pirates are relatively persistent. In France, for example, only 9% of all the warned copyright infringers received two warnings, and that was after two full years. Also, only 0.029% of the French got a third strike. While these “strikes” programs have their differences, the high number of second warnings in the U.S. stands out. One of the issues that may play a role here is that some people don’t read the emails that come in at their ISP address. The CCI is nonetheless convinced that copyright alerts are able to deter pirates, some at least. "We are encouraged by the initial data from the Copyright Alert System's first 10 months suggesting that the program has the potential to move the needle in deterring copyright infringement,” CCI’s Jill Lesser said commenting on the results. “Our initial research into consumer attitudes – along with what we have seen in our own data – shows that consumers do respond to this kind of educational system that alerts them to infringing activity on their account and helps them find the content they want easily and legally," Lesser adds.  Another figure of interest is the number of appeals. After three or four alerts subscribers have the option to appeal the evidence at the American Arbitration Association. Only 0.27% of the eligible subscribers did so, which translates into a few hundred people. The most often cited reason to appeal was “unauthorized use” of the subscriber’s account. According to the report there were just 47 successful challenges decided in favor of the accused subscriber, which is 18% of all appeals. Overall, the participating ISPs and copyright holders are all positive about the results so far. According to the RIAA’s Steve Marks the program is a respectful and effective way to deal with the piracy problem. "We are proud of the program's accomplishments and delighted by our successful partnership with the ISP community. This report confirms that the CAS is working – it's reliable, respectful of consumers, and an effective way to let them know about all the legitimate alternatives in the marketplace,” Marks says. Despite the enthusiasm, whether the program has been effective enough to put a real dent in local piracy rates has yet to be seen. Last year we reported that instead of kicking their download habit, many people took measures to prevent themselves from being monitored. In addition, we observed that U.S. traffic to The Pirate Bay did not decline after the system was implemented. In any case, it’s good to see that the first set of data is now available to the public. It will be interesting to see how the current trends develop over time. Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.   |
| Movie Studios Seek to Freeze Kim Dotcom’s Assets Posted: 28 May 2014 09:39 AM PDT
Their targets were old adversaries Megaupload, Kim Dotcom and associates Mathias Ortmann and Bram Van Der Kolk. Running in parallel with the ongoing criminal proceedings initiated by the U.S. Government, the complaint followed much of the same path. Earlier this month, Megaupload’s legal team responded by asking the court to freeze the MPAA’s case in order to protect their clients’ Fifth Amendment rights not to implicate themselves in advance of the U.S. government’s criminal case against them. In the period since both sides’ legal teams have been in discussion over the potential terms of any stay. But, according to papers filed in a Virginia court yesterday, 20th Century Fox are concerned that Dotcom’s fortune could soon be back in the entrepreneur’s hands. Megaupload’s and Dotcom’s millions were seized following the now-notorious 2012 raid. However, last month the New Zealand High Court said it would not extend the foreign restraining order against his assets. That decision was quickly appealed by the Crown, but the possibility remains that Dotcom could soon regain his wealth and legally dispose of it. The studios want to stop that from happening. “If the New Zealand Government loses the appeal, the assets will be unfrozen, and there is a significant risk that they will then be immediately dissipated,” the studios’ lawyers state in yesterday’s filing. Led by Warner Bros., the studios add that since Dotcom and his associates “have or have had sophisticated global business interests” and with that an ability to “move assets offshore quickly and immediately”, they are taking legal action to try and prevent that. “To ensure that Defendants' New Zealand assets remain frozen even if the New Zealand Government loses the pending appeal, several of the Plaintiffs have initiated civil proceedings in New Zealand to freeze Defendants' assets pending a judgment in the [studios' civil case against Megaupload/Dotcom].”
“In addition to opposing extension of the asset freeze in New Zealand, Defendants are also seeking to unfreeze their assets in Hong Kong, which have also been frozen pursuant to this Court’s restraining orders issued in the Criminal Action,” the studio’s lawyers write. “If Defendants are successful in their efforts to unfreeze their assets in Hong Kong, In conclusion the studios state that while they do not oppose Megaupload’s request for a stay, the terms must not preclude them taking action to freeze the worldwide assets of Megaupload and Kim Dotcom. But of course, just days after the studios filed their lawsuit in April, the RIAA jumped on board too by filing a a substantially similar suit against the same defendants, again demanding millions in damages. Yesterday the labels also made their voices heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in respect of Megaupload’s motion for a similar stay in their case. Although penned by different law firms, the labels’ filings are much the same as those from the studios. In a slightly different conclusion, the labels oppose a stay order, but note that if one is granted it should not disallow them from seeking to “preserve the Defendants’ worldwide assets.” Further hearings on the fate of the currently seized millions are scheduled for July 10 in Hong Kong and in the New Zealand High Court tomorrow. Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.   |
February last year, 
In early April, Twentieth Century Fox, Disney, Paramount Pictures, Universal, Columbia Pictures and Warner Bros. teamed up to 
| 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 | |
