Category Archives: File Sharing

Google, MPAA and isoHunt Clash in Court

Posted on by

Last year the BitTorrent search engine isoHunt filed an appeal in their case with the MPAA. With the appeal isoHunt hopes to overturn a District Court ruling that obligates the site to operate an MPAA-approved censorship filter. The case is still ongoing and the Appeal Court has now granted Google the opportunity to chime in as well, leading to critical comments from both the MPAA and isoHunt.

Two months ago Google got involved in a BitTorrent case for the first time in its history. The company took an interest in the ongoing legal action between isoHunt and the MPAA, fearing that the standing injunction has the potential to damage Google and other web services.

In February Google filed an amicus brief (third party testimony) at the Appeal Court, in the hope that the court would consider Google’s opinion on the case. The MPAA was against a Google contribution, but despite these concerns the Appeal Court has now allowed the search engine’s testimony to be added to the case.

Although Google did not dispute isoHunt’s liability in their testimony, the company stated that some of the reasoning in the District Court verdict went too far, and Google wants to see it scrapped in the appeal.

“While in agreement with the result reached in this case, Google is concerned that some of the reasoning offered by the district court goes too far and would upset the careful balance between copyright protection and technological innovation struck by the Supreme Court and Congress. Particularly because this case is not a hard one, it should be decided narrowly,” Google wrote.

The search giant addresses various issues they feel are not needed to arrive at the verdict, but can negatively impact other services on the Internet. Several of these conclusions are the result of suggestions made by the movie studios, which Google claims are misplaced and incorrect.

Google wants to address these issues because they fear it may otherwise lead to a negative outcome for themselves.

The Appeal Court agreed to accept and consider the amicus brief last month. This is the first time that Google have got involved in a BitTorrent case which is significant itself, but interestingly enough neither the MPAA nor isoHunt are happy with Google’s submission.

In a response to Google’s brief, isoHunt says it agrees with Google’s arguments that the District Court verdict is full of “fatal errors” and “omissions”. However, it doesn’t agree with Google’s conclusion that isoHunt is liable for copyright infringements by some of their users. isoHunt’s lawyer therefore asks the court to reject the latter arguments.

“Defendants submit that Google’s confusing arguments and fallacious reasoning should not obscure the importance of issues presented by this case. Defendants have proposed a practical way to deal with such issues; but Google, like plaintiffs, propose nothing other than affirmance of a factually flawed and legally ill-founded District Court Decision.”

The MPAA also responded to Google’s testimony, and was even less pleased to see the company chime in.

“Google is not a disinterested amicus. Google itself is a defendant in suits charging certain of its business units which intentionally promote infringement. Google’s arguments as amicus reflect its litigation interests in obtaining a legal ruling that facilitation of infringement, even if shown to be intentional, may still be immune from copyright liability.”

The MPAA’s legal team then goes on to refute nearly all arguments made by Google. The search engine wants to scrap all of the District Court’s conclusions regarding liability that could eventually be used against Google, but the movie companies clearly disagree.

“The Court should reject Google’s pleas for immunities for businesses that intentionally facilitate copyright infringement,” MPAA’s lawyers conclude.

Although Google weighed in on the isoHunt vs. MPAA case in self-interest, the mere fact that they got involved signifies the importance of the case. To some it may ‘just’ be a dispute between a BitTorrent site and the MPAA but if affirmed the District Court ruling may have far-reaching consequences for hundreds of other web-services.

After filing the amicus brief Google’s role in the case has likely ended, but isoHunt and the MPAA will continue their battle in court.

There’s a hearing planned in early May where we will find out more about where the case is heading. Interestingly, this hearing is scheduled on the same day and in the same court as Veoh’s appeal hearing. Another DMCA case, but one where the service provider was not held liable.

Read

Prominent Torrent Site ‘Scamvertiser’ Calls It Quits

Posted on by

Those in the entertainment industries would have people believe that it’s impossible to compete with ‘free’, that if someone offers something for nothing then charging a fee for the same product becomes hugely difficult. But for years companies have made a business out of doing just that, selling access to otherwise free file-sharing software. However, with little to no explanation, one of the market leaders has suddenly shut down, cutting off funding to many file-sharing related sites.

Upon double-clicking the familiar white and green ‘micro’ icon, millions of users of the massively popular uTorrent client are greeted by a now-familiar message.

“This program is freeware,” says the notice. “If you paid for it you have been scammed.” uTorrent is indeed freeware, but over the years untold thousands of people new to file-sharing have handed over money to companies selling this otherwise free software. So why do people fall for it?

 

Image is Loading....The practice has been going on for many years and has taken on quite a few shapes during that time, but in basic terms this is how it works. People turn up at a flashy looking site which offers “Free Downloads! Free Music! Free Movies!” and after clicking through various links they discover that a “membership” is on offer.

However, after signing up for a few dollars (ostensibly for access to the free media) users find themselves directed to downloads of software like uTorrent or, as was the case for many years, apps like LimeWire, Shareaza, BearShare, WarezP2P and Soulseek. Many customers also found themselves the proud owner of dubious ‘anti-spyware’ software.

Once people discover they have bought freeware, they tend to shout loudly about being scammed. Indeed, in the early days there could have been little doubt that was the case, but in more recent times these companies have become more sophisticated with their offerings, often portraying the charge they make as being not for the file-sharing app itself, but for subsequent customer support or ‘training’. Many potential file-sharers, it seems, don’t read the small print.

For YottaCash – one of the biggest companies in this market – these relatively ignorant file-sharing ‘n00bs’ have been the source of significant amounts of money over the years. YottaCash has been running much of its business through affiliate programs and, since it likes to attract file-sharers, what better place to find them than on file-sharing sites and forums?

As a result, many genuine file-sharing sites collected good income from their affiliation with YottaCash, and vice-versa. As can be seen from this screenshot from the archive of the YottaCash website, converting a single user to a sale could yield very decent revenue.

Image is Loading.....

But for the owners of YottaCash and their affiliates, all ‘good’ things come to an end.

“We have taken the important and unfortunate business decision to shut down our services and DISCONTINUE ALL related products and affiliate programs,” began the announcement from YottaCash last week.

“We are unable to continue offering the level of service that our customers are expecting and it has become impossible to verify all the links and promises posted by our affiliate traffic sites.”

An additional part of the announcement, which appears to have since been removed, read as follows:

“Recent events, changes as well as challenges in the online landscape are forcing us to take this drastic & regrettable decision.”

No further explanation for the sudden closure has been offered by YottaCash in public or in private but it’s hard to come to a conclusion that selling free products suddenly became an unprofitable business in itself. Other factors are at play here but what exactly remains to be seen.

It will be interesting to see how the other players in the market react and adapt as they quickly (and probably very easily) take up the slack. But are there people left on the Internet these days who are incapable of using the wisdom of Google before handing over cash to companies like this in future?

Yes, of course there are. Absolutely millions of them.

Read

Movie Studio Sues BitTorrent Swarm in Civil Conspiracy Suit

Posted on by

As the dozens of mass-lawsuits against BitTorrent users move through the U.S. courts, lawyers are slowly optimizing their strategies. This week an interesting case was filed at the Southern California District Court, as the movie studio Liberty Media filed a lawsuit against a BitTorrent swarm, “Swarm of November 16, 2010″ to be precise.

Image is Loading....The movie outfit Liberty Media has been very active in going after alleged BitTorrent users in recent months.

In January we reported that the studio wanted file-sharers to hand themselves in and pay $1000, an ‘amnesty’ scheme that mysteriously appeared to work. In addition, the company has started over a dozen (mass) lawsuits against thousands of BitTorrent users who allegedly shared their content without permission.

In a recent case filed on Monday, Liberty Media and their lawyer tried something new. Instead of simply joining the various defendants in one suit, the company is actually suing a BitTorrent swarm in the case tiled: “Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. Swarm of November 16, 2010 et al.”

In the complaint they explain:

Image is Loading....“The defendants are a group of BitTorrent users or peers whose computers are collectively interconnected for the sharing of a unique file, otherwise known as a ‘swarm’. The particular file a BitTorrent swarm is associated with has a unique hash,” Liberty Media’s lawyer writes.

“The torrent swarm in this case is not an actual entity, but is rather made up of at least 95 individuals, acting in concert with each other, to achieve the common goal of infringing upon the Plaintiff’s copyright both by illegally duplicating the Plaintiff’s Motion Picture and illegally distributing the Plaintiff’s Motion Picture.”

The lawyers then continue with a very detailed reconstruction of how the swarm came about. For every defendant they list the IP-address and the exact time when they joined the swarm. As the title of the case already suggests, all infringements took place on the same day – November 16, 2010.

Liberty Media’s lawyer then continues the complaint by describing how BitTorrent works, and how the alleged defendants worked together to distribute the files. Not only for their own pleasure, but also to the benefit of the entire swarm.

“In the BitTorrent world, there is honor among thieves. Those who merely download files, without publishing and sharing files, are derisively called ‘leechers’,” Liberty Media’s lawyer writes. “Being a leecher is not only negative due to the pejorative terminology, but leechers are also punished by the torrent swarm.”

According to the complaint the swarm and the 95 ‘does’ are, aside from copyright infringement, also believed to be guilty of a civil conspiracy. “The center of this conspiracy is the scheme to traffic in infringing content,” the complain reads, adding that the role of the torrent swarm is essential in this process.

Although it’s not explicitly stated, we assume that the emphasis on the swarm and the conspiracy are an attempt to circumvent the jurisdiction and improper joinder issues that led to the dismissal of previous suits.

By arguing that all defendants shared bits and pieces in the Southern District of California, even those who live elsewhere, the plaintiffs claim that the Court has jurisdiction. Similarly, it is argued that, since all defendants were part of the same swarm on the same day, joining them in one case should be justified.

Despite this innovative “sue a swarm” approach, the end-game of Liberty Media is the same. They want to know who the people behind the IP-addresses are, to kindly ask them for a few hundred or thousand dollars to settle the dispute. Pay up or else..

Read

As Enlightening 3 Strikes Data Appears, Authorities Raid Top Cyberlocker Sites

Posted on by

In mid-2009, South Korea made the pioneering move of implementing a 3 strikes style regime for dealing with illicit file-sharing. As statistics become available for the first time, authorities have conducted one of the biggest piracy crackdowns involving so-called cyberlocker sites. The Ministry of Culture says that 19 of the country’s top services were targeted which together served up to 4 million users.

For the past several years, the music industry has championed the need for a 3 strikes-style regime in order to combat illicit file-sharing. The idea is that when someone is monitored illegally sharing files, they are sent a warning letter via their ISP. On receipt of a third such warning the recipient will find his connection to the Internet temporarily severed.

On April 1st 2009, South Korea took a step into the unknown by passing legislation to begin such a regime. By July 2009, warnings were being delivered to users via their ISPs and now, thanks to work by Heesob Nam, the results of the first 6 months of the scheme are available, as shown in the table below:

 

Image is Loading....Interestingly, ‘Suspension of User Account’ – the 3rd strike – hasn’t been used at all in any case. So, while on one side people will argue that a 3 strikes regime was never necessary, others in the music industry will no doubt frame it differently – that the threat was necessary to force compliance and has been proven to be 100% effective. Whether that trend continued for the rest of 2010 remains to be seen.

However, a unique aspect of the South Korean implementation of 3 strikes is that it applies to websites too. If found to be continually hosting infringing content, either as reported by copyright holders or at the discretion of the government, sites run the risk of being shut down by the authorities.

It is of great interest, then, that while the above figures show zero disconnections for the the first 7 months of the scheme, the same will not be true when March 2011′s figures are reported.

The South Korean authorities have just announced they have conducted a major crackdown on some of the country’s top cyberlocker/file-hosting services.

According to the Ministry of Culture, 19 “die-hard” sites were targeted in the operation which was carried out by dozens of investigators over the past several days.

Together the sites are reported to have served between 2 million and 4 million users, and in common with pending cases in the United States, prosecutors in South Korea claim that the sites encouraged those users to upload infringing material.

So far around 1000 TB of data has been seized and the prosecutors say work is now underway to identify the heaviest uploaders. Since South Korea’s 3 strikes law allows action to be taken against those who continually upload infringing content even to file-hosting sites, Internet suspensions could be on the way.

Read