Category Archives: Anti-Piracy

Liberals and Democrats Announce Rejection of ACTA

Posted on by

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats (ALDE) in the European Parliament have just confirmed that they will reject ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Leader of the Alliance, Guy Verhofstadt, said that while supporting the protection of intellectual property rights, ALDE believes that ACTA falls short on a number of counts.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a treaty aimed at harmonizing global copyright Image is Loading....enforcement, received yet another serious setback today.

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in the European Parliament have just announced that they will reject the controversial treaty.

“Although we unambiguously support the protection of intellectual property rights, we also champion fundamental rights and freedoms. We have serious concerns that ACTA does not strike the right balance,” announced Guy Verhofstadt, ALDE group leader.

Verhofstadt said that ALDE continues to support multilateral IP enforcement efforts, but only those with a transparent, publicly discussed mandate. He added that ALDE shares the legitimate concerns of those who participated in the anti-ACTA protests in recent months.

“Civil society has been extremely vocal in recent months in raising their legitimate concerns on the ACTA agreement which we share. There are too many provisions lacking clarity and certainty as to the way they would be implemented in practice,” Verhofstadt noted.

One of the key problems raised by anti-ACTA activists is the way the treaty has morphed and grown since its inception. From its roots as a mechanism to deal with counterfeit goods, ACTA grew to encompass the unauthorized sharing of digital media online. This means that from targeting strictly criminal enterprises, ACTA now risks sucking in the man in the street. This one-size-fits-all approach is opposed by the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats.

“Furthermore, ACTA wrongly bundles together too many different types of IPR enforcement under the same umbrella, treating physical goods and digital services in the same way,” said Verhofstadt. “We believe they should be approached in separate sectoral agreements, and following a comprehensive and democratically debated mandate and impact assessment.”

Yesterday the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) said that ACTA may have unacceptable side effects on fundamental rights of individuals.

“While more international cooperation is needed for the enforcement of intellectual property rights, the means envisaged must not come at the expense of the fundamental rights of individuals,” assistant European data protection supervisor Giovanni Buttarelli said in a statement.

“A right balance between the fight against intellectual property infringements and the rights to privacy and data protection must be respected. It appears that ACTA has not been fully successful in this respect.”

#1

YouTube Liable For Copyright Infringements, Court Rules

Posted on by

A court in Germany has ruled that YouTube is responsible when its users post videos containing copyright music. On top of its existing ContentID systems, the court in Hamburg now wants YouTube to install additional keyword-based filters that detect when copyrighted material is uploaded.

The battle between YouTube and music rights group GEMA began in earnest when talks Image is Loading....between the pair on the issue of royalties completely broke down in 2010. An earlier agreement with GEMA, which represents around 60,000 artists, had expired in 2009.

Rather than come to the negotiated settlement preferred by YouTube, GEMA commenced legal proceedings on copyright grounds against the Google-owned video site. The action concerned 12 specific music videos uploaded by YouTube users to which GEMA owns the rights but for which YouTube paid no royalties. GEMA argued that YouTube hadn’t done enough to monitor content submitted to the site.

Today a court in Hamburg ruled that YouTube is indeed responsible for the material its users upload to the site, despite the site having state-of-the-art filters which aim to detect and remove infringing content.

Presiding Judge Heiner Steeneck said his ruling gave both sides a reason to declare victory. GEMA wanted YouTube to take responsibility for videos uploaded in the past as well as those uploaded in the future but that was denied.

“YouTube isn’t the perpetrator here, it’s those people who illegally upload songs,” Steeneck said. “That’s why YouTube doesn’t have to search all videos uploaded in the past. It only has to help detect videos from the moment it is alerted about possible violations.”

Although YouTube operates its ‘ContentID’ anti-piracy system which detects infringements by way of digital fingerprints, the court ruled that in isolation that is insufficient. In addition YouTube must now filter by keyword too.

Both sides say they are considering their options and are yet to announce whether they will appeal the ruling.

Major Book Publisher Demands Jury Trial Against BitTorrent Pirates

Posted on by

John Wiley & Sons, one of the world’s largest book publishers, is continuing its efforts to crack down on BitTorrent piracy. The company has now named several people who allegedly shared Wiley titles online, and is demanding a jury trial against them. If these actually go ahead it will be the first time that BitTorrent-related evidence is tested in a US court.

Last fall, John Wiley and Sons became the first book publisher to go after BitTorrent users Image is Loading......in the US.

By filing a mass-BitTorrent lawsuit the company followed mostly in the footsteps of several movie studios, who together have sued more than 250,000 people in the US since early 2010. And the publisher didn’t stop at just one.

In recent months Wiley has filed more than a dozen mass BitTorrent lawsuits involving a few hundred John Doe defendants in total. The Does are all accused of sharing digital copies of titles including “WordPress for Dummies,” Hacking for Dummies” and “Day Trading for Dummies.”

Talking to us, Wiley’s attorney William Dunnegan said previously that one of the main goals of the legal campaign is to obtain the personal details of the alleged infringers and offer them the opportunity to solve the matter through a settlement.

“Our intention is to stop the infringement and let individuals know that they are violating the law and depriving the creators of the works of rightful compensation. Our preference is to educate, settle, and prevent further infringement,” Wiley’s attorney William Dunnegan told us.

However, this strategy doesn’t always work. While the courts and Internet providers have been cooperative in assisting Wiley to obtain the personal details of the alleged book pirates, a new filing suggest that some defendants are not taking the publisher’s settlement offer.

In a one of Wiley’s cases four defendants have now been named in an amended complaint.

New York residents Jeff Ng, Ralph Mohr, Robert Carpenter and Xiaoshu Chen are no longer anonymous Does. Wiley is proceeding to call for a full jury trial against the quartet in which they will face accusations of copyright infringement and up to $150,000 in penalties for each offense.

Contacted by us, Wiley’s attorney William Dunnegan declined to comment on the recent developments in these specific cases. “We are proceeding with these cases as a part of Wiley’s overall copyright enforcement and education program,” was the comment we got instead.

If one or more of the three cases indeed proceeds to a full trial it will be the first time that actual evidence against BitTorrent infringers is tested in court. This is relevant because the main piece of evidence the copyright holders have is an IP-address, which by itself doesn’t identify a person but merely a connection.

In a past RIAA court case experts described the evidence gathering techniques “as factually erroneous”, “unprofessional” and “borderline incompetent.” In addition, academics have shown that due to shoddy technique even a network printer can be accused of sharing copyrighted files on BitTorrent.

If the evidence is indeed tested in court, it should be a case to watch for sure.

That said, there’s also the chance that the lawyers are using the threat of a full trial by jury as a pressure tool to convince the defendants to settle. After all, the RIAA’s litigation campaign against individual file-sharers has shown that even when a jury awards hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages, lengthy trials cost more than they bring in.

#1

Pirate Party Sues Hollywood Backed Group over Pirate Bay Censorship

Posted on by

The Dutch Pirate Party is taking local anti-piracy group BREIN to court in the hope of overturning a recent order that prohibits the Party from operating a Pirate Bay proxy site. The Pirates claim that the Hollywood backed group is guilty of “legal harassment” and “trampling people’s freedoms.” They demand that the court overturns the previous ‘ex parte’ verdict to allow the Pirate Party to be heard.

The legal battle over Internet censorship is heating up in the Netherlands, as the local Image is Loading....Pirate Party is now suing anti-piracy group BREIN.

Two weeks ago BREIN ordered the Party to take down a reverse Pirate Bay proxy. The site allowed subscribers of two Dutch Internet providers to bypass a court ordered blockade of the notorious torrent site, and BREIN argued that the proxy was sabotaging this order.

Initially the Pirate Party refused to give in to the demands, but when they were confronted with an injunction from the court right before the weekend they had no other choice than to comply. The Pirates took down the reverse proxy and replaced it with a protest page linking to dozens of other ways people can access The Pirate Bay.

On Saturday, BREIN sent a follow-up letter urging the Party to take down these links as well, including the Party’s generic proxy. However, aside from removing the hyperlinks, the Pirates rejected these demands. Instead, they have now announced that they will sue the anti-piracy group.

“By dragging BREIN to court, the Pirate Party finally has the chance to put forward arguments to strike the court injunction that was unilaterally imposed on it last friday by Dutch entertainment industry organization BREIN,” the Party announced today.

Through the courts the Pirate Party hopes to get the ex parte injunction overturned. The Party argues that they have the right to be heard, and say that the court allowed BREIN to take justice into their own hands by adding extra demands under threat of draconian penalties.

“It is time that the industry attack dogs understand that you can’t trample on people’s freedoms for your own monetary gain,” Pirate Party board member blauwbaard says.

“Today we’ll try to explain to the judge how giving BREIN one blocking instrument causes them to stretch it in unjust ways to stifle free speech and the free flow of information. Paraphrasing Victor Hugo, nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come,” he adds.

The Pirate Bay case is keeping BREIN busy this month as the group is also taking two new Dutch Internet providers to court to expand the local blockade.

The Pirate Party is glad that finally they will be able to strike back at their nemesis. Freedom of speech and an Open Internet are two core issues of the Party which they are eager to defend.

“The Dutch Pirate Party calls upon all pirates and freedom-loving landlubbers to stand up and support our fight against censorship. Because as Martin Luther King might have said it, were he alive today, ‘freedom on the Internet is indivisible, a threat to freedom of the Internet anywhere is a threat to freedom on the Internet everywhere’,” they state.

Update: Adding fuel to the fire, the prominent Dutch weblog Geenstijl created a proxy redirector at FuckTimKuik.org. Ouch.

#1