Archive for the ‘Copyright Issues’ Category

Copyright Troll Causes Chaos By Suing Fans Without Band’s Permission

If further proof is needed that copyright trolls are only interested in money and couldn’t care less about artists or their reputations, read on. A lawsuit, filed against fans of the band All Shall Perish, caused chaos in the past 48 hours when the horrified band revealed they know nothing about it. Speaking with us, the band’s manager says they are “gutted” by the news and have no idea what is going on.

As reported here on Friday, a lawsuit filed April 20th in the US District Court For The Middle Image is Loading.....District of Florida is targeting fans of American metal band All Shall Perish.

Up to a point it’s a familiar story. A total of 80 IP addresses are listed having been harvested from a BitTorrent swarm sharing the album “This Is Where It Ends”. The plaintiff, a company called World Digital Rights, wants to discover the real-life identities of the alleged file-sharers so they can be hauled into court or, as is almost guaranteed, settled with for a few thousand dollars instead.

After the news broke, predictably the band started to receive negative feedback. But according to All Shall Perish’s manager, Ryan Downey, neither he nor the band know anything about the legal action.

“The band wasn’t consulted whatsoever and none of us have ever heard of this company,” Downey told us. “I spoke to the US label manager and German label president who both are as confused as we are. We are digging deeper and looking into the legality of it all. We are thinking it’s perhaps a sublicensor or some digital aggregator or something?!”

In reality the answer seems more straightforward. All Shall Perish’s German label are Nuclear Blast who according to their site are “the largest independent heavy metal label in the world.” Even if Nuclear Blast’s president is confused by the lawsuit, people working for him are definitely fully in the picture.

According to the lawsuit, on March 12, 2012, Nuclear Blast signed over the rights to “This Is Where It Ends” to World Digital Rights, Inc., an act that made the Panama-based company the “exclusive licensee” of the album. Along with that came the right to sue and it seems the company are now making the most of that right. After conducting another search of court documents today, it appears that World Digital Rights actually filed two lawsuits against alleged sharers of the album, one against 80 Does and another against a further 100.

In both cases World Digital Rights demands that each defendant is held “jointly and severally liable for the direct infringement of each other defendant” and held liable for statutory damages of $150,000.

Downey, who told us that the band were totally blindsided by the revelations, describes this action against fans as “awful” and has promised to stay in touch with developments. Ideally these lawsuits will get withdrawn, not only for the sake of the Does but for the sake of the band. But if Nuclear Blast and World Digital Rights persist with this ridiculous project, All Shall Perish might have no choice but to personally intervene – their reputation could rely on it.

US Music Pirates Face New $150,000 Damages Claims

In what appears to be the first action of its type since the RIAA abandoned its controversial anti-filesharing campaign, Internet users sharing music are again being targeted in the United States. In a lawsuit filed in Florida the identities of 80 individuals are being sought with one aim in mind – to threaten them with $150,000 damages awards in order to force settlement of a few thousand dollars.

In December 2008, the RIAA announced that it would end its lawsuit campaign in which it Image is Loading.....targeted alleged file-sharers for cash settlements.

The venture, which lasted 5 long years, saw the group target some 18,000 individuals and generate some of the most controversial anti-piracy headlines of the last decade.

Recent years have seen the same strategy revived, largely by adult studios. With less of a reputation to preserve and possessing additional leverage as their victims fret over their taste in media becoming public, news of the lucrative schemes spread deeper into the porn industry and beyond.

Eventually mainstream movie companies such as The Hurt Locker’s Voltage Pictures chanced their hand, and even more recently book publisher Wiley jumped on board.

Now, after several years’ break, music lawsuits are back on the agenda.

As revealed by a lawsuit filed April 20th in the US District Court For The Middle District of Florida, American metal band All Shall Perish are seeking to identify dozens of their fans who allegedly shared their music on BitTorrent without permission.

Founded in 2002, All Shall Perish are on the Nuclear Blast label. Through their lawsuit, filed by World Digital Rights, they are seeking to convert 80 IP addresses, harvested from a BitTorrent swarm sharing their album “This Is Where It Ends”, into real-life identities.

“Upon information and belief, each defendant went to a torrent site to download a torrent file and then downloaded and uploaded the copyrighted Work within the BitTorrent network,” court papers read.

Among other things, the plaintiff demands that each defendant is held “jointly and severally liable for the direct infringement of each other defendant” and held liable for statutory damages of $150,000.

A jury trial is demanded but as everyone knows by now, no robustly defended case will ever get to court. Settlements of a few thousand dollars will be offered and paid by terrified individuals, whether or not they are guilty.

This is the second BitTorrent infringement case filed in recent days by the Dorta & Ortega law firm. Worryingly, both cases have their roots in Germany where lawsuits of this nature are running riot. If these succeed, more will surely come.

#1

BitTorrent Crackdown Center Prepares to Punish Pirates

In a few months millions of BitTorrent users in the United States will be actively monitored as part of an agreement between the MPAA, RIAA and all the major ISPs. Those caught sharing copyright works will receive several warning messages and will be punished if they continue to infringe. Today the center responsible for administering the scheme announced its Executive Board, which surprisingly enough doesn’t include any neutral executives.

Starting this summer, the Center for Copyright Information (CCI) will start to track down ‘pirates’ as part of an agreement with all major U.S. Internet providers.

Last year the parties agreed on a system through which copyright infringers are warned that their behavior is unacceptable. After six warnings ISPs may then take a variety of repressive measures, which includes slowing down the offender’s connection and temporary disconnections.

The new plan was announced under the name ‘Copyright Alerts‘ last year and will be implemented by all parties by July 12, 2012. As this deadline nears, the CCI today unveiled several key players who are going to lead the group.

Surprisingly, the Executive Board is exclusively made up of representatives from the RIAA, MPAA and the ISPs.

RIAA’s Steven Marks has been appointed as Vice Chairman and General Counsel, MPAA’s Marianne Grant is the Senior Vice President, Comcast’s Alan Lewine is Senior Counsel, Verizon’s Thomas Dailey is Chairman, Viacom’s Daniel Mandil is Associate General Counsel and AT&T’s Brent Olson is Vice President of Public Policy.

For an organization that aims to educate Internet users in a responsible way, consumer rights representatives are completely absent from the Executive Board.

However, the Advisory Board does include public rights advocates including Jerry Berman, the Chairman of the Internet Education Foundation and founder of the Center for Democracy and Technology, and Gigi Sohn, co-founder of Public Knowledge.

The latter says it wasn’t an easy decision to accept the position. Sohn is especially worried about the threat of Internet disconnections.

“I still have concerns about some of the points in the agreement. One of the most prominent is the threat that consumers could have their access to the Internet cut off,” he says.

“I will ask at the appropriate time for the ISPs to promise not to interpret the agreement’s ‘temporary restriction’ provision as allowing for suspension of user Internet accounts. This provision is most troubling because an individual could lose access to the Internet just on the basis of suspicion alone.”

The CCI will be headed by copyright and consumer protection expert Jill Lesser, who will serve as Executive Director. Unlike some members of the advisory board, Lesser is delighted with her appointment and is eager to start sending out the first batch of alerts.

“I am excited to lead CCI as it begins this constructive effort to reduce and deter online copyright infringement in a way that is centered on education and deterrence, not punishment,” she said. “This unprecedented collaboration demonstrates that when content providers and distributors work together we can protect copyright and empower consumers at the same time.”

As expected, CCI is mainly focusing on the educational component of the scheme, but in essence it’s deterrence through punishment.

While we now know a little bit more about the people who will lead CCI, the organization has yet to announce the company that will be responsible for tracking down millions of BitTorrent pirates. Last year sources told us that DtecNet got the lucrative contract, but that was the last we heard of it.

One thing’s for certain, the company that gets the contract will have to be reviewed by an independent expert to see if their evidence gathering techniques pass the scrutiny test. But even when the end-stage tracking evidence is solid, there will always be many wrongful accusations, not least because people run unsecured Wi-Fi networks and ISPs make mistakes.

Those wrongfully accused Internet subscribers have the right to call for an independent review at the cost of a $35 filing fee. These disputes will then be handled by the American Arbitration Association, CCI announced today.

While the CCI is confident that the alerts are an effective way of deterring online piracy we have our doubts. For one, the monitoring system is relatively easy to bypass through a proxy or VPN. Secondly, the multi-million dollar plan only covers a few of the many sources of online piracy.

The millions of U.S. Internet users who download via cyberlockers and streaming portals are not affected by this agreement at all, as these downloads are impossible for third parties to track.

Time will tell who’s right.

“Pirating” UK Student to be Extradited to the US

Richard O’Dwyer, the UK-based ex-administrator of the video linking website TVShack will be extradited to the US to face copyright infringement charges. Despite public outrage Home Secretary Theresa May approved the extradition order today. The 23-year-old student has never visited United States, but now faces several years in a US prison.

Last year Richard O’Dwyer was arrested by police for operating TVShack, a website that carried links to copyrighted TV-shows.

Following his detention in the UK’s largest prison, the site owner fought a looming extradition to the US, but without success.

After a UK judge gave the green light to extradite the student two months ago, Home Secretary Theresa May officially approved the request from US authorities today.

Julia O’Dwyer, Richard’s mother, is severely disappointed with the decision and says that her son has been “sold” to the US. The extradition may disrupt his life for years.

“Today, yet another British citizen is betrayed by the British Government,” she said.

“Richard’s life – his studies, work opportunities, financial security – is being disrupted, for who knows how long, because the UK Government has not introduced the much-needed changes to the extradition law.”

The extradition is controversial because under certain circumstances merely linking to copyright material isn’t an offense in the UK. In 2010, linking website TV-Links was deemed to be a ‘mere conduit’ of information and its admins were acquitted.

In the US recent court rulings are of a totally different kind. There, Richard O’Dwyer faces the same fate as several other operators of linking sites that were recently on trial.

In January, Ninjavideo founder Hana Beshara was sentenced to 22 months in prison followed by 2 years of probation, 500 hours of community service and ordered to repay nearly $210,000. Fellow admin Matthew Smith received 14 months in prison, two years supervised release, and was ordered to pay back just over $172,000.

#1

Hollywood Lawyers Threaten ‘Hobbit’ Pub

Film producer Saul Zaentz owns the film, stage and merchandising rights to JRR Tolkien classics such as The Hobbit. Ostensibly to protect those rights, lawyers for the company are now threatening small businesses across the UK with ruinous legal action if they don’t stop using the term ‘Hobbit’ – a word that may not even have been created by Tolkien.

When Hollywood paints their version of the piracy picture, they’re careful not to mention Image is Loading....the millionaires and the affluent who do rather well despite unauthorized copying. Instead they focus on the little guys who make coffee and run errands on set, and the mom and pop businesses scraping an honest living on the periphery.

But when the big rightsholders feel under threat, they’re happy to crush those very same people in pursuit of money. Cue an awful story today from the UK’s Daily Echo.

For the last 20 years a little pub in Southampton, England, has been serving beer to the local community and all that time it’s had the same name – The Hobbit. But Saul Zaentz, the producer behind movies such as The English Patient and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, has sent in the lawyers to do something about that.

Zaentz owns the merchandising rights to The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings and his lawyers have warned that if the pub doesn’t change its name and remove all references to Tolkien-related items by the end of May, its owners will be sued for infringement.

Understandably its owners are upset. They can’t afford to fight the studio but their pub’s very identity is now at risk. People supporting a Facebook campaign against the studio’s threats is growing quickly.

But even more worrying is that this action by Zaentz against a local pub doesn’t sit in isolation.

image is Loading...In November 2011, Zaentz sent his lawyers to threaten the owners of a small cafe in Birmingham, England, near to where Tolkien was born. The sandwich bar, known as The Hungry Hobbit, was accused of copyright infringement despite operating under the name for the last 6 years. The current owners are first-time business owners of less than a year’s standing.

In a letter titled “Unauthorized Use of Hobbit” – Zaentz’s lawyers ordered the owners of the cafe to stop using the word Hobbit or face legal action, claiming that the sandwich bar’s use of the term would be detrimental to the brand and would leave people to believe that the outlet is endorsed by Zaentz.

Image is Loading0....But the threats don’t even stop there. A small company in Scotland making wooden lodges dared to refer to one of their products as “hobbit houses” on their website. Of course, Zaentz sent in the lawyers and the company were forced to comply.

But let’s step back for a moment to see what the origin of the word ‘Hobbit’ actually is. Was this something conjured up from the depths of Tolkien’s imagination in 1937, a product of his mind and his mind only? That’s up for debate.

In 1895, folklorist Michael Aislabie Denham listed a massive collection of interesting creatures in his publication ‘The Denham Tracts Vol 2‘ which included “. . . nixies, Jinny-burnt-tails, dudmen, hell-hounds, dopple-gangers, boggleboes, bogies, redmen, portunes, grants..”

And, of course, ‘Hobbits’.

It seems absolutely ridiculous that 125+ years after an imaginary creature was reported somehow a company can come along and turn the lives of normal people upside down over the use of its name.

Trademarks may have to be protected, but being a heartless bully can’t be the answer.