Archive for the ‘Legal Issues’ Category

Demonoid Domain Sale Banned Over Legal Issues

After several turbulent weeks with DDoS attacks, the shutdown of its servers and a criminal investigation into the site’s owners, trouble continues for the Demonoid BitTorrent tracker. After the site’s domain names were put up for sale last week, domain market place Sedo has now delisted them citing “legal issues.” As time progresses the hope of a comeback for what was once one of the largest BitTorrent communities continues to fade.

After being pulled offline by a DDoS and suspected hacker attack, nearly two weeks ago Image is Loading....news broke that Demonoid’s servers had been shutdown in the Ukraine.

The action followed a request from Interpol, with the music group IFPI later taking credit for the takedown. While some of Demonoid’s users still expect the site to reopen with a new hosting provider, a comeback appeared less likely when the three main Demonoid domains were listed for sale last week.

Demonoid.me, Demonoid.com and Demonoid.ph were put up for sale at the popular domain name and website marketplace Sedo, but as it turned out, not for long. Two of the three domain names have now been de-listed due to legal issues.

Anyone wishing to buy the .PH or .COM domain now see the following message;

“Due to possible legal issues associated with this domain, Sedo is not able to offer services for the domain. Please consider selecting an alternative domain.”

Interestingly, the .ME domain which acted as the primary Demonoid address for more than a year, has not been de-listed by Sedo.

 

Banned over “legal issues”

Image is Loading.....We contacted Sedo who informed us that while they take a neutral position in copyright issues, the company has an obligation to protect its users.

“In addition to processing notice-takedown complaints from third-party rights holders, Sedo also employs an internal listing suspension policy when we’re made materially aware of a domain that is either subject to ownership dispute or under investigation by relevant law enforcement,” a Sedo spokesperson told us.

“This is done to protect potential buyers from purchasing a domain where its use and ownership could be threatened after the purchase for unforeseen circumstances. In such situations, the listing user is informed and once they can provide documentation demonstrating the domain’s clear title, the listing will be reinstated.”

While Sedo said it “can’t go into specifics”, the company suggested that no third-party or law enforcement group had ordered the de-listing of the domains. Sedo did not respond to our question why the main .ME domain is still for sale.

At the moment we haven’t heard from Demonoid as to why the domains are being sold, or what this means for the site’s future. If there is any.

Alleged UK File-Sharers Better Armed and Ready To Fight Ben Dover

After initially attempting to target around 9,000 individuals, Golden Eye International acting on behalf of pornographic film producer Ben Dover are about to start dumping cash demands on the doorsteps of 2,845 alleged file-sharers in the UK. We have obtained a copy of the letter due to be sent out and it amounts to little more than a demand for cash wrapped up in an ACS:Law-style fishing exercise.

Starting next month, Golden Eye International (GEIL) will start sending out letters to Internet account holders they accuse of downloading and sharing various adult movies produced by UK porn outfit Ben Dover.

Despite protestations to the contrary, the exercise amounts to an ACS:Law-style scheme to extract cash settlements from Internet users.

The one big difference is that when ACS:Law entered the ‘pay-up-or-else-market’ their targets were largely unprepared. Today the situation in the Ben Dover case is quite different, not least due to the intervention of Consumer Focus, a group that has sought to protect consumers by bringing GEIL into line.

“We intervened in this case to make sure that consumers are treated fairly. People will not have ready access to the sort of specialised legal advice necessary to respond to allegations of copyright infringement. That is why we are working with the Citizens Advice service to provide clear advice to consumers about what to do if they are accused of copyright infringement,” said Consumer Focus Chief Executive Mike O’Connor in a statement this morning.

This is welcome news. Many original ACS:Law victims, including the author of the campaigning site ACS:Bore, turned to an ill-prepared Citizens Advice service in desperation only to leave dissatisfied. Hopefully things will be different this time around.

Originally, GEIL wanted to target more than 9,000 individuals alleged to have downloaded adult movies. However, the High Court has only given permission for ISP O2 to reveal the identities of 2,845 account holders alleged to have downloaded and shared Ben Dover movies, striking out the remainder who are alleged infringers of other studios’ content. They may be back though, pending the outcome of a 2013 appeal.

So when the letters finally appear through the doors of alleged infringers, what will they look like?

We have obtained an advance copy of the final letter and we can confirm that it amounts to little more than a rehashed ACS:Law-style scheme to extract cash settlements from Internet users based on flawed and incomplete IP address-only ‘evidence’. While the intervention of Consumer Focus and the High Court means that it is less aggressive than the letter sent by ACS:Law, it still has plenty of faults.

We say you’re a pirate, but we can’t prove it and need you to help us

“This letter assumes that you, as the internet account holder at your address, were the user of the relevant computer on the day and time in question,” the letter states under the title “Infringing acts.”

But in common with ACS:Law, GEIL then go on to admit that they have no proof that the individual being written to is the actual infringer.

“In the event that you were not responsible for the infringing acts outlined above because, for example, another member of your household was the user of the computer, you should make full disclosure to us of the other parties at your residence using your internet connection to make the Work available for download,” the letter states.

“A failure to make such disclosure may lead to a claim being made against you with the court being asked to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that you were the user of the computer.”

While GEIL are perfectly entitled to “ask the court to conclude” whatever they like, it does not necessarily follow that a High Court judge will take their advice. The law states that if the defendant did not carry out the infringement or did not authorize someone else to do so, they are not guilty of copyright infringement. If they do not know who infringed, then it will be impossible for them to tell GEIL, despite the firm’s veiled threats.

Michael Coyle, a solicitor advocate with Lawdit Solictors, a company that previously helped people fight off ACS:Law, says that while there is a chance GEIL will take a case or two to court, this is all about settlements.

“The exercise is an attempt to obtain as much money as [GEIL] can and it will cause significant embarrassment [due to the pornographic nature of the content],” Coyle told us. “However the two key points remain the same, no infringement can be proven unless people accept that they did it or GEIL get to inspect their hard drive.”

And admitting to wrongdoing is exactly what GEIL are asking for people to do.

“Please state whether you admit that you have downloaded the Work and/or made it available for download by others, and if so the extent to which you have done so,” the letter adds.

It should be noted that earlier in the letter GEIL state that the level of damages claimed in any court case would be directly linked to the “extent to which you have downloaded the Work and/or made it available for download by others.” Why anyone would want to help GEIL formulate a claim against them by providing them with the ammunition is anyone’s guess. If GEIL had evidence to show the actual extent of any infringement, they would show it.

Settling with GEIL will involve paying them money, although in their first letter they don’t say how much. It is widely believed that they will ask for £700 once negotiations begin, perhaps even more if people help GEIL build a case on a full confession.

Anyone receiving a letter should contact the Citizens Advice Consumer Service on 08454 04 05 06 or their local Citizens Advice Bureau. And don’t forget to contact Tus too, in complete confidence of course.

Dotcom Extradition Judge Steps Down After “U.S. Enemy” Comment

The New Zealand judge handling the extradition case of Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom has dramatically stepped down from the role. Speaking at the NetHui conference last week, Judge David Harvey had voiced his feelings on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, describing the United States as “the enemy”. Accepting that the comments could lead people to question his impartiality in the case, Harvey has surrendered his role.

For the greater part, Kim Dotcom and his co-defendants will have been pretty happy with Image is Loading.....Judge David Harvey, the man overlooking their increasingly controversial extradition case.

Things had been going well, with the Judge ruling favorably towards the Megaupload founder and his friends on a number of occasions, but last week he apparently overstepped the mark.

It happened during the NetHui conference after the launch of “Fair Deal”, a campaign opposing amendments to New Zealand copyright law that could become part of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. In common with ACTA that went before it, TPP negotiations are being held in secret and being used by the U.S. entertainment industries to push for tougher copyright law.

One of issues surrounds the circumvention of DVD region codes which currently allows New Zealanders to watch DVDs from other regions without committing an offense. TPP seeks to remove that freedom, and Judge Harvey made it clear he wasn’t happy with that.

“Under TPP and the American Digital Millennium copyright provisions you will not be able to do that, that will be prohibited… if you do you will be a criminal – that’s what will happen,” Judge Harvey said, adding:

“..we have met the enemy and he is [the] U.S.”

Quickly, NZHearld quoted Auckland University law professor Bill Hodge describing the comment as potentially “unhelpful” but clearly the pressure has been building since.

This morning, Chief District Court Judge Jan-Marie Doogue announced that Judge Harvey had decided to step down from the case over the comments.

“He recognizes that remarks made in the context of a paper he delivered on copyright law at a recent internet conference could reflect on his impartiality and that the appropriate response is for him to step down from the case,” she said.

Over the past few months, Judge Harvey has ruled several times in favor of Dotcom and his co-defendants.

Back in April, he praised Dotcom and his associates on their “commendable” behavior, going on to reinstate Dotcom’s Internet access, his swimming sessions, and visits to a recording studio to finish his album.

He went on to grant Mathias Ortmann, Bram van der Kolk and Finn Batato permission to travel to Dotcom’s home once a week for a maximum of six hours so that they could work on their defense.

And in May and against U.S. wishes, Judge Harvey ordered the disclosure of all documents related to crimes the “Megaupload conspirators” had allegedly participated in.

The extradition case, scheduled for 2013, will now be heard by Judge Nevin Dawson.

Kim Dotcom & His Fellow Defendants Will Go to the US in Exchange for Legal Funds

Just hours after his extradition hearing was delayed until 2013, Kim Dotcom is offering the US Government an unusual deal. Growing tired of the “dirty games” being played, Megaupload’s founder says he will voluntarily go to the US if he and his colleagues are promised a fair trial and money to pay their legal and living expenses.

Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom has always been confident that he and his fellow Image is Loading....defendants will walk free, if they are given a fair trial.

However, that last part is something he and his lawyers believe the US is trying to prevent. In recent months Megaupload’s legal team has tried to get funds unfrozen so that legal bills can be paid, but thus far without success.

Yesterday, there was yet more bad news when the extradition hearing was delayed from next month till March 2013. This means that even more legal costs will have to be paid in between.

“I have accumulated millions of dollars in legal bills and I haven’t been able to pay a single cent. They just want to hang me out to dry and wait until there is no support left,” Dotcom told NZHerald in a comment.

In an ultimate attempt to speed things up, Dotcom is offering the US Government a remarkable deal. He and his fellow defendants will go to the US voluntarily in exchange for a fair trial, legal funds, and money to pay for personal expenses.

“Hey DOJ, we will go to the US. No need for extradition. We want bail, funds unfrozen for lawyers & living expenses,” Dotcom posted on Twitter.

While this would certainly save the US considerable legal costs, Megaupload’s founder doesn’t think they will respond positively to the offer. By limiting defense funds the US is creating an advantage it doesn’t want to give up.

“They will never agree to this and that is because they can’t win this case and they know that already,” he says.

According to Megaupload’s founder the entire investigation is a gife to Hollywood. Last week Dotcom revealed that Vice President Biden was the person who ordered the Megaupload shutdown and in the coming days he will release a song with a special message for President Obama.

#1

Kim Dotcom’s Extradition Hearing Delayed Until 2013

Kim Dotcom’s extradition hearing has been delayed until 2013. The Megaupload founder and his alleged co-conspirators were due to appear in court on August 6 in a hearing scheduled to last 3 weeks, but legal issues including questions over evidence disclosure have put the event back until March next year. Dotcom has slammed the delay as “dirty delay tactics by the US.”

Kim Dotcom, the founder of Megaupload, the now-defunct site at the center of what is believed to be the largest copyright infringement case in United States history, will have to wait until next year for his extradition hearing.

The hearing, which would see Dotcom and alleged co-conspirators Mathias Ortmann, Finn Batato and Bram van der Kolk protest their extradition to the United States, was originally scheduled to take place next month in Auckland.

Following agreement between Dotcom’s lawyer Paul Davison QC and the prosecution, it has now been rescheduled for July 2013.

“It was inevitable that the hearing for August was going to be vacated because we have two existing cases in the High Court,” William Akel, one of Dotcom’s lawyers, told Reuters.

Dotcom, however, took to Twitter to voice his complaints.

“Dirty delay tactics by the US. They destroyed my business. Took all my assets. Time does the rest,” he wrote.

“The NZ government is refusing an NZ resident due process and a fair defense. Shame on you [Prime Minister of New Zealand] John Key for allowing this to happen. Shame on you.”

In recent weeks, legal arguments on a number of issues have further complicated the already controversial case, including an appeal of a court ruling last month that found the warrants used by New Zealand police to raid Dotcom’s Coatesville mansion in January were invalid, rendering the searches illegal.

Earlier, a judge criticized the shipping to the U.S. of hard drive copies taken from Dotcom’s computers by the FBI, describing the act as “unlawful”.

Last week, local prosecutors acting on behalf of the U.S. government argued in the High Court against an earlier District Court ruling that said Dotcom and the rest of the so-called “Mega Conspiracy” should be allowed access to the evidence set to be used against them in the extradition hearing.

Prosecutors said there was no need for Dotcom, Mathias Ortmann, Finn Batato and Bram van der Kolk to see the evidence because they are not being tried in New Zealand. Their lawyers disagree, stating that it is crucial the information is examined in order for their clients to mount a fair defense.

#1