Posted: 19 Nov 2014 03:01 AM PST

The movie and music industries have obtained several High Court orders which compel UK ISPs to block dozens of websites said to facilitate access to copyright-infringing content. Recently, however, they have been joined by those seeking blockades on trademark grounds.

The lead case on this front was initiated by Cartier and Mont Blanc owner Richemont. The company successfully argued that several sites were infringing on its trademarks and should be blocked by the UK’s leading ISPs.

The case is important not only to trademark owners but also to those operating in the file-sharing arena since the High Court is using developments in one set of cases to determine the outcome of legal argument in the other.

The latest ruling concerns potential over-blocking. In some cases target sites move to IP addresses that are shared with other sites that are not covered by an injunction. As a result, these third-party sites would become blocked if ISPs filter their IP addresses as ordered by the Court.

To tackle this problem Richemont put forward a set of proposals to the Court. The company suggested that it could take a number of actions to minimize the problem including writing to the third-party sites informing them that a court order is in force and warning them that their domains could become blocked. The third party sites could also be advised to move to a new IP address.

Complicating the issue is the question of legality. While third-party sites aren’t mentioned in blocking orders, Richemont views some of them as operating unlawfully. When the company’s proposals are taken as a package and sites are operating illegally, Richemont believes ISPs should not be concerned over “collateral damage.”

Counsel for the ISPs disagreed, however, arguing that the Court had no jurisdiction to grant such an order. Mr Justice Arnold rejected that notion and supported Richemont’s efforts to minimize over-blocking in certain circumstances.

“The purpose of Richemont’s proposal is to ensure that the [blocking] order is properly targeted, and in particular to ensure that it is as effective as possible while avoiding what counsel for Richemont described as ‘collateral damage’ to other lawful website operators which share the same IP address,” the Judge wrote.

“If the websites are not engaged in lawful activity, then the Court need not be concerned about any collateral damage which their operators may suffer. It is immaterial whether the Court would have jurisdiction, or, if it had jurisdiction, would exercise it, to make an order requiring the ISPs to block access to the other websites.”

The ISPs further argued that the Court’s jurisdiction to adopt Richemont’s proposals should be limited to sites acting illegally in an intellectual property rights sense. The argument was rejected by the Court.

Also of note was the argument put forward by the ISPs that it is the Court’s position, not anyone else’s, to determine if a third-party site is acting illegally or not. Justice Arnold said he had sympathy with the submission, but rejected it anyway.

“As counsel for Richemont submitted, the evidence shows that, in at least some cases, it is perfectly obvious that a particular website which shares an IP address with a Target Website is engaged in unlawful activity. Where there is no real doubt about the matter, the Court should not be required to rule,” the Judge wrote.

“Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, Richemont’s proposal gives the operators of the affected websites the chance either to move to an alternative server or to object before the IP address is blocked. If they do object, the IP address will not be blocked without a determination by the Court.”

In summary, any third-party sites taken down after sharing an IP address with a site featured in a blocking order will have no sympathy from the High Court, if at Richemont’s discretion they are acting illegally. The fact that they are not mentioned in an order will not save them, but they will have a chance to appeal before being blocked by UK ISPs.

"This action is about protecting Richemont's Maisons and its customers from the sale of counterfeit goods online through the most efficient means, it is not about restricting freedom of speech or legitimate activity,” the company previously told TF.

“When assessing a site for blocking, the Court will consider whether the order is proportionate – ISP blocking will therefore only be used to prevent trade mark infringement where the Court is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so.”

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

MPAA Pays University $1,000,000 For Piracy Research

Posted: 18 Nov 2014 01:06 PM PST

Last week the MPAA submitted its latest tax filing covering 2013. While there are few changes compared to previous years there is one number that sticks out like a sore thumb.

The movie industry group made a rather sizable gift of $912,000 to Carnegie Mellon University, a figure that neither side has made public before.

This brings the MPAA’s total investment in the University over the past two years to more than a million dollars.

The money in question goes to the University’s “Initiative for Digital Entertainment Analytics” (IDEA) that researches various piracy related topics. During 2012 MPAA also contributed to the program, albeit significantly less at $100,000.

TF contacted IDEA co-director Rahul Telang, who told us that much of the money is spent on hiring researchers and, buying data from third parties and covering other research related expenses.

“For any substantial research program to progress it needs funding, and needs access to data and important stakeholders who care about this research. IDEA center has benefited from this funding significantly,” he says, emphasizing that the research applies to academic standards.

“All research is transparent, goes through academic peer review, and published in various outlets,” Telang adds.

While IDEA’s researchers operate independently, without an obligation to produce particular studies, their output thus far is in line with Hollywood’s agenda.

One study showed that the Megaupload shutdown boosted digital sales while another reviewed academic literature to show that piracy mostly hurts revenues. The MPAA later used these results to discredit an independent study which suggested that Megaupload’s closure hurt box office revenues.

Aside from countering opponents in the press, the MPAA also uses the research to convince lawmakers that tougher anti-piracy measures are warranted.

Most recently, an IDEA paper showed that search engines can help to diminish online piracy, an argument the MPAA has been hammering on for years.

The tax filing, picked up first by Variety, confirms a new trend of the MPAA putting more money into research. Earlier this year the industry group launched a new initiative offering researchers a $20,000 grant for projects that address various piracy related topics.

The MPAA sees academic research as an important tool in its efforts to ensure that copyright protections remain in place, or are strengthened if needed.

"We want to enlist the help of academics from around the world to provide new insight on a range of issues facing the content industry in the digital age," MPAA CEO and former U.S. Senator Chris Dodd said at the time.

The movie industry isn’t alone in funding research for ‘political’ reasons. Google, for example, heavily supports academic research on copyright-related projects in part to further its own agenda, as do many other companies.

With over a million dollars in Hollywood funding in their pocket, it’s now up to IDEA’s researchers to ensure that their work is solid.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Why Hollywood Director Lexi Alexander Sides With “Pirates”

Posted: 18 Nov 2014 07:19 AM PST

It's pretty obvious that Lexi Alexander isn't your average Hollywood director. Instead of parading on the red carpet sharing redundant quotes, she prefers to challenge the powers that rule Hollywood.

A few months ago Alexander campaigned to get Pirate Bay’s Peter Sunde released from prison, pointing out that throwing people in jail is not going to stop piracy.

She believes that the MPAA and other pro-copyright groups are a bigger threat than casual pirates, and unlike some of her colleagues she is not afraid to tell the world.

Recently Alexander penned five reasons why she’s pro file-sharing and copyright reform. While she’s doesn’t agree with the “everything should be free” mantra of some anti-copyright activists, Alexander believes that file-sharing is mostly a symptom of Hollywood’s failures.

Over the past day or so this turned into a heated debate (e.g. 1, 2) between a movie industry workers on Twitter, where various anti-piracy advocates condemned the movie director and others for siding with “pirates.”

From a Hollywood perspective Alexander’s ‘balanced’ comments may indeed appear extreme, not least since like-minded voices keep quiet for career reasons. So why has she decided to jump on the barricades then? Today, Alexander explains her motivations to us in a short interview.

TF: What triggered you to discuss file-sharing and copyright related topics in public?

Lexi: It wasn't my intent to be that outspoken about file-sharing, at first I just wanted to expose the hypocrisy of Hollywood going after anybody for any crime. But after I had published that first blog, I was suddenly exposed to a lot more information about the issue, either from people in the copyright reform movement or through outlets like yours.

Frankly, TorrentFreak has a lot to do with the extent of my outspokenness. Sometimes I see your headlines in my Twitter feed and I think I'm in some alternative universe, where I'm the only one who swallowed the red pill. "Another kid in prison for a file-sharing", "Anti file-sharing propaganda taught in schools", "torrent sites reported to the state department", etc., etc. All done in the name of an industry that is infamous for corruption. I mean, doesn't anybody see that? Hollywood studios shaking their finger at people who illegally download stuff is like the Vatican shaking their finger at pedophiles.

TF: What’s your main motivation to support file-sharing and copyright reform??

Lexi: Well, first and foremost I will not stand for young, bright minds being hunted and locked up in my name. And since I am still part of the film & TV industry, albeit not the most popular member at this point, these acts are done in my name. Even if I would agree with this ludicrous idea that everything to do with file-sharing or downloading is theft and should be punished with prison…then I'd still insist that everybody in Hollywood who has ever stolen anything or cheated anybody needs to go to prison first. If we could somehow make that rule happen with magical fairy dust…you'd never hear another beep about imprisoning file-sharers.

Secondly, I have said this a million times and it's like I'm talking to the wall…horrible thieves (aka the four letter acronym) are stealing 92.5 % of foreign levies from filmmakers in countries outside of the US, breaking the Berne Convention in the process. It's actually not legal for those countries to hand any money to anybody else but the creator. But somehow, some very smart con men duped these shady collection societies into handing them all the dough. Ask me again why I need copyright reform?

See, I wish more of my colleagues would come out of the fog…but that fog is made of fears, so it is thick and consistent. Fear to upset the decision makers, fear to get blacklisted and never get to make movies again, fear to get fired by your agents, fear to become unpopular with your film-industry peers, it's so much easier to blame the British, pimple-faced teenager, who uploaded Fast and the Furious 6, for the scarcity we experience.

I used to get frustrated about my peers’ lack of courage, but lately I feel only empathy. I don't like seeing talented storytellers ruled by fear. I don't even enjoy the endless admissions I get anymore from producers or Executives who whisper in my ear that they're pro file-sharing too (this is often followed by a demonstration of their illegally downloaded goods or their torrent clients, as if they're trying to make sure I'll put in a good word, if the power were to shift to the other side one of these days).

TF: Do you believe that your opinions on these topics may impact your career? If so, how?

Lexi: What do you think? LOL

But my opinions on these topics are based on facts, so therefore the question I have to ask myself next is: If I keep the truth to myself and watch innovators get sent to prison by actual criminals…how does that impact my soul?

I do realize how huge the giant I decided to criticize really is whenever I read about the amount of money that’s at play here.

At the moment I still have a TV show under option, which I am currently developing and I'm getting ready to pitch another one. A few things definitely fell through right after my first piracy post and I'm not sure how many people don't consider me for projects because of my file-sharing stance. I can't really worry about that. First and foremost I'm still a filmmaker, so if this shit gets too real I have to force my mind down the rabbit hole (filmmaker euphemism for escaping into your screenplays or movies).

TF: File-sharing also has its downsides of course. What’s the worst side of piracy in your opinion?

Lexi: The worst part is that there are a lot of people who suddenly feel entitled to do anything they want with our work, at any given stage. I spoke to a filmmaker the other day whose film got leaked during post production. It was missing the visual effects and it had a temp score (temporary music used as a filler before the real score is ready). Then reviews started popping up about this version of the film on IMDB, yet the people who posted those reviews had no fucking clue what they were judging, revealed by the many comments about "the director ripping off the Dark Knight score". It was the Dark Knight score, you morons.

That was really heartbreaking and whoever doesn't understand that can go to hell. I don't think there's anybody in the world who'd like their work, whatever it may be, stolen when it's half way done and paraded around the world with their name on it.

I also will never be able to respect anybody who films or watches one of those shaky cam movies. I don't buy that there's anybody who enjoys a movie that way, I think this is all about trying to be the shit on some forum.

TF: In what way do you think file-sharing will (and has) change(d) the movie industry?

Lexi: I entered this industry right at the beginning of the transition to digital technology. I remember insisting to shoot my first two films on film stock, by then people were already dropping the "dinosaur" and "stone age" hints. We were all beaten into submission when it came to new digital technologies, because they reduced production and distribution costs. Then the powers started realizing that those same technologies also made unauthorized duplications much easier, so the narrative changed and now we were told to hate that part of it. It's almost comical isn't it?

I quickly realized that file-sharing would shatter borders and as someone who considers herself a citizen of the world, rather than of one country, this made me extremely happy. I have always wanted entertainment events to be global rather than national. This is good for the world.

The more the audience becomes familiar with foreign movies and TV shows (not synchronized and released months later, but subtitled and premiering simultaneously) the sooner we will start accepting, maybe even demanding shows and movies with a diverse, global cast from the get go. And since those are the shows I create… it cannot happen fast enough.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

PirateBay

Torrentfreak: “If Illegal Sites Get Blocked Accidentally, Hard Luck Says Court” plus 2 more

Torrentfreak: “If Illegal Sites Get Blocked Accidentally, Hard Luck Says Court” plus 2 more