Torrentfreak: “Aussie ISPs Rushing Ahead With Anti-Piracy Proposals” plus 3 more

Aussie ISPs Rushing Ahead With Anti-Piracy Proposals
IFPI Targets ‘Pirate’ Domains With New Site Blocking Law
Falsely Accused ‘Pirate’ Wins $101,000 in Attorney Fees
Canadian Govt. Outlaws Bogus Piracy Notices

Aussie ISPs Rushing Ahead With Anti-Piracy Proposals

Posted: 13 Jan 2015 02:34 AM PST

For years Australian citizens have complained of being treated as second class citizens by content companies who have failed to make content freely available at a fair price. As a result millions of Aussies have turned to file-sharing networks for their media fix.

This has given the country somewhat of a reputation on the world stage, which in turn has put intense pressure on the Australian government to do something to reduce unlawful usage.

After years of negotiations between ISPs and entertainment companies went nowhere, last year the government stepped in. ISPs were warned that if they don’t take voluntarily measures to deter and educate pirating subscribers, the government would force a mechanism upon them by law.

With a desire to avoid that option at all costs, the service providers went away with orders to come up with a solution. Just last month Attorney-General George Brandis and Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull set an April 8 deadline, a tight squeeze considering the years of failed negotiations.

Nevertheless, iiNet, Australia’s second largest ISP, feels that the deadline will be met.

"We will have code; whether or not it gets the rubber stamp remains to be seen," says iiNet chief regulatory officer Steve Dalby. “Dedicated people are putting in a lot of work drafting documents and putting frameworks together.”

With just 120 days to come up with a solution the government’s deadline is a big ask and Dalby says there are plenty of complications.

"There are issues around privacy, there are issues around appeals. There are issues around costs. There is a lot of work that needs to be done," he says.

Of course, these are exactly the same issues that caused talks to collapse on a number of occasions in the past. However, in recent months it’s become clear that the government is prepared to accept less stringent measures than the entertainment industries originally wanted. Slowing and disconnecting subscribers is now off the table, for example.

Although there has been no official announcement, it seems likely that the ISPs will offer a notice-and-notice system similar to the one being planned for the UK.

Subscribers will be informed by email that their connections are being used to share content unlawfully and will be politely but firmly asked to stop. An educational program, which advises users where to obtain content legally, is likely to augment the scheme.

Who will pay for all this remains to be seen. ISPs have previously refused to contribute but with the government threatening to impose a code if a suitable one is not presented, compromise could be on the table.

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

IFPI Targets ‘Pirate’ Domains With New Site Blocking Law

Posted: 13 Jan 2015 01:23 AM PST

Domain blocking is now firmly established as one of the entertainment industries’ go-to methods for reducing online copyright infringement. Its use is widespread around Europe by both the music and movie sector.

In Europe the most important legal decision was announced in March last year when the Court of Justice of the European Union confirmed that EU ISPs can be required to block access to sites engaged in copyright infringement.

Elsewhere, individual countries are making their own decisions on how to move forward. Last July, Singapore legislators approved the Copyright Amendment Bill which allows copyright holders to obtain High Court orders forcing local service providers to block "flagrantly infringing" websites. Now, six months on, entertainment companies are ready to launch their first tests.

IFPI regional director Ang Kwee Tiang confirmed that the music group will initially target three to five “infringing sites” over the next two months.

"We are now actively looking into exercising this in the future," he said.

The sites to be targeted have not yet been revealed but it’s always been the understanding that The Pirate Bay would be tackled first. The site’s reputation as the “worst-of-the-worst” allows entertainment companies to present a relatively straightforward case to the courts. The rising number of blocking orders already granted elsewhere only add to the mix.

"Now, The Pirate Bay has more than 6 million links. We take the screenshots and we show that these are not licensed. We’re going to show that The Pirate Bay has been blocked in nine or 10 different countries. I think that will be very convincing for our cause,” Ang said.

However, with The Pirate Bay currently down, it’s possible that other targets will have to be selected in the first batch. Ang confirms that evidence is still being collated but he’s confident that a successful blockade will help to reduce piracy.

"I divide (consumers) 80 to 20 – 80 per cent are average consumers, if they cannot get it easily and if a legal site offers it, they may go for the legal site," he said.

"The committed pirate is like a committed criminal. They will search for ways to circumvent. But once we have the website blocking, then we are free to tackle the 20 per cent."

The driving force behind the site blocking phenomenon can be found in the entertainment companies of the United States but following the SOPA debacle public discussion to progress site blocking has been fairly muted. That doesn’t mean nothing has been happening, however.

In December it was revealed that behind closed doors the MPAA has been working hard to bring site blocking to the United States. Whether those aims will still be progressed following the somewhat embarrassing leaks will remain to be seen, but it’s likely the movie group won’t be steered off course for long.

Overall, Hollywood definitely sees blocking as an important anti-piracy tool. The practice is endorsed by none other than MPAA chief Chris Dodd and internal MPAA research has found it to be effective.

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

Falsely Accused ‘Pirate’ Wins $101,000 in Attorney Fees

Posted: 12 Jan 2015 02:19 PM PST

Mass-piracy lawsuits have been plaguing the U.S. for years, targeting hundreds of thousands of alleged downloaders.

Most copyright holders involved in these cases, often referred to as trolls, are only out to collect settlement payments from the accused, so the cases never go to trial.

The same is true for the lawsuit between the makers of the "Elf-Man" movie and Ryan Lamberson of Spokane Valley, Washington.

As is common in these cases an IP address was presented as the main piece of evidence. This address was collected by a file-sharing “investigator” using software to connect to the BitTorrent swarm where the infringing files were allegedly shared.

However, Lamberson’s attorney pointed out to the court that the studio’s evidence was far from solid, and that they couldn’t prove the alleged wrongdoings.

“Mr. Lamberson is an innocent ISP subscriber. Like many of the Elf Man defendants, he had never heard of Elf Man. He never had any desire to view the movie let alone download his own copy,” defense attorney Chris Lynch tells TF.

One of the problems the defense uncovered was that the tracking software couldn’t actually prove that the defendant had downloaded the file.

“Although the complaints allege the defendants ‘downloaded’ the works, the plaintiff’s investigators’ computers are programmed only to entrap data uploaded by the defendant, not data downloaded by the defendant. In other words, there is no evidence that any defendant downloaded the movie, only supposition,” Lynch says.

And there were other problems too. The Elf-Man studio wasn’t entirely forthcoming about the identity, employer, or location of its investigators, for example.

Faced with these issues the Elf-Man makers decided to drop the lawsuit. However, they didn’t get away without having to pick up the bill as Judge Rice awarded attorney fees to the accused file-sharer.

Just before the weekend the Judge issued an order granting Mr. Lamberson nearly $101,000 in attorney fees, which he deemed a reasonable amount.

“Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees … is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant is awarded attorney fees in the amount of $100,961,” the Judge writes.

The awarded fees are short of the $200,000 requested, but the defense is quite pleased with the outcome nonetheless as the amount helps to cover the costs.

For some, however, the outcome is still a disappointment in that the Elf-Man makers weren’t sanctioned for their dubious practices, including the use of unlicensed investigators.

Lynch and his firm Lee & Hayes are not done with the copyright trolling cases though, and will keep a close eye on developments. Perhaps they can target this type of abuse again in a future case.

“Although we are delighted with the outcome for Mr. Lamberson, we remain concerned about the practice of United States copyright infringement cases being brought against innocent people who are based on thin, possibly inadmissible, foreign evidence without any corroboration of actual infringement,” Lynch notes.

“Our case exposed some of the abuse, but there are hundreds of cases throughout the country based on similar evidentiary anomalies. My law firm intends to remain active in this area fighting this abuse.”

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

Canadian Govt. Outlaws Bogus Piracy Notices

Posted: 12 Jan 2015 07:27 AM PST

Recent changes to Canadian copyright law mean that when rightsholders observe local Internet users infringing copyright online, ISPs must forward any resulting infringement notices to their customers.

The new system has only been in place for just over a week but rightsholders haven’t wasted any time sending notices out. Even smaller ISPs such as Teksavvy are forwarding in excess of 3,000 notices per day.

While notices are one of the more reasonable anti-piracy options available today, there are companies that want to augment those gentle warnings into something more aggressive. Close to day one of the new law, U.S.-based anti-piracy outfit Rightscorp began sending infringement notices to Canadians with cash-settlement threats attached.

“You could be liable for up to $150,000 per infringement in civil penalties," the notices told alleged music pirates.

Sadly, the claim is completely untrue. Canadian law caps liability for non-commercial infringement at $5,000 for all infringements. This miscalculated eagerness to break the Canadian market could now cost Rightscorp dearly.

Within a day of the company’s bogus threats being made public, Rightscorp attracted the negative attentions of the Canadian government and placed the turn-piracy-into-profit business model under scrutiny.

“These notices are misleading and companies cannot use them to demand money from Canadians,” said Jake Enright, a spokesman for Industry Minister James Moore.

The good news for Internet subscribers is that government officials will contact Internet service providers during the days to come in order to put an end to these threats. However, it’s not clear that will put a complete end to Rightscorp’s activities in Canada.

According to University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist, there is nothing in Canada’s new legislation which restricts the ability of rights holders to include information in notices that goes beyond a simple advisory that copyright law has been breached.

On this basis it seems unlikely that Rightscorp will simply give up. Government comment on the original notices centers around the anti-piracy company’s erroneous citing of U.S. law so modification to reflect the true Canadian position should bring the piracy monetization outfit into line.

It may be, however, that given the government intervention ISPs will choose not to forward Rightscorp notices at all.

Demands for cash aren’t popular with Internet subscribers and there are signs that leading ISPs in the United States don’t like the approach either. While they forward the infringement notices themselves, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and other major ISPs remove the attached cash settlement demands.

Nevertheless, Rightscorp does work with dozens of smaller ISPs who are happy to assist with the company’s business model. And despite plenty of information being available which advises letter recipients not to pay, many still pay a $20 ‘fine’ to get the company off their back.

Sadly though, sometimes this has the opposite effect. One of Rightscorp’s tactics is to send a bill for $20 for one track from an album and then when people pay, they are subsequently billed for the rest of the tracks at a further $20 each.

Before the notice recipient pays the first $20, Rightscorp has no idea of the person’s identity and would need to spend a lot of money in court to find out – hardly worth it for $20. But having paid $20 and signed a disclaimer, the company now knows the person’s name and address.

At this point the pressure to pay can become overwhelming. Time will tell if Canadians can avoid these tactics.

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