The celebrations following the site’s demise were to be short-lived. Newzbin was quickly resurrected under new management as Newzbin2, and the MPA faced the prospect of taking on new legal action against the site’s new owners. Rather than tackle Newzbin2 head on, Hollywood tried a different approach.

During September 2010, TorrentFreak learned that the MPA were developing plans to take leading UK ISP BT to court and by December we had solid proof that was indeed the case. The MPA went to court seeking an injunction against BT in order to force them to block Newzbin2.

“In launching this case, the MPA is aiming to secure an order that will enable BT to block Internet access to the site, thus preventing the site from using the Internet to make money through infringement,” the MPA informed us in a statement.

This week the MPA are back at the High Court again, hoping it can get an injunction to force BT to block the site for its 5.6 million subscribers. According to an MPA spokesperson, BT was selected for two reasons.

“BT was chosen because it’s the largest [ISP] and already has the technology in place, through its Cleanfeed system, to block the site,” she said.

Developed by BT at an estimated cost of £500,000, Cleanfeed is a content blocking system that has been operational since 2004. In conjunction with information supplied by the Internet Watch Foundation, it is used by BT to block child pornography sites.

Traffic destined for a blacklisted URL or IP address is intercepted by Cleanfeed. At this point BT impersonates the destination web server and returns an HTTP 404 status code, causing a subscriber’s web browser to show a site “not found” message.

It is unclear how much development work has been done on the system since its inception, but early versions of Cleanfeed had a number of limitations. The product only worked on the standard port for regular browsing, port 80. It was also unable to block encrypted or proxied web traffic, unless the proxy itself was on the blacklist.

Interestingly, according to comments made in 2004 by Mike Galvin, then Director of Internet Services for BT Retail, the company already had concerns that outsiders would attempt to widen the purpose of Cleanfeed. Another ISP, Wanadoo, was apparently approached by the BPI to use a system similar to Cleanfeed to block music piracy.

In response, Galvin said that if the pressure to “extend the scope” of Cleanfeed became too great, BT would cancel the project. BT has made no recent public comment to that effect in connection with this current action by the MPA.

“The MPA application to engage in censorship of the Internet for their own petty interests would, if granted, set a dangerous precedent in a Western democracy,” Newzbin told TorrentFreak in an earlier statement.

“‘Drive-by’ litigation such as this will cut off access to substantial legitimate content and is entirely unwarranted & disproportionate.”

Newzbin have already taken steps to mitigate any site blocking measures by using the TOR anonymity system.

“The MPA’s lame attempt at censoring us in the UK won’t be permitted to cut Brits off from us if it happens,” concludes Newzbin’s Mr White.

Source: Hollywood Force ISP To Use Child Abuse Filter Against File-Sharing Site

Transdroid offered both a free and a paid version of the app, and judging from the 400,000 downloads people seemed to appreciate it. However, as of this week, Google decided that Transdroid is no longer eligible to be placed in the Android Market.

“I have just received an e-mail from Google that Transdroid, both the free and donate version, have been pulled form the Android Market. This is due to apparent violations in the content policies of publishing in the Android Market,” Transdroid’s developer announced.

Google’s notification wasn’t very clear on what the violations were, but considering the nature of the app it wouldn’t come as a surprise if they relate to copyright infringement.

According to the developer content policy apps should not be infringing copyrights in any way.

“Don’t infringe on the intellectual property rights of others, including patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright, and other proprietary rights. We will respond to clear notices of alleged copyright infringement,” the policy reads.

Although Transdroid itself isn’t infringing any copyrights, the screenshots on the app’s website do feature some copyrighted downloads which Google may see as a violation of the Android developer policy. As we highlighted previously, this is not a particularly wise thing to do.

Unlike Apple, Google is not banning everything BitTorrent related, but if developers showcase infringing uses they may see no other option that to take the app down. Even Cydia, the alternative market place for iPhone apps, is taking a harsh line on file-sharing software that ‘promote’ infringing uses.

For Transdroid, however, things aren’t completely over yet. The developer has asked Google to explain what he should change so the site can be added to the Android Market again. In the meantime the app and the source code are available as a direct download through the Transdroid website.

“Thanks to all Transdroid users for their support and enthusiasm. Let me be clear that I am happy to build a version for the Android Market that does satisfy their policies and can still help thousands of happy BitTorrent users around the world,” Transdroid’s developer says.

Source: Google Boots Transdroid Torrent Manager From Android Market

The MPAA, who would love a decisive victory against a cyberlocker service under their belt, probably selected Hotfile because of its relative lack of might when compared to market leaders RapidShare and MegaUpload. The company also has a track record of settling lawsuits rather than fighting them. The outcome in the case, whichever way it goes, will have serious implications for others in the same field in the United States.

At this stage there are no indications Hotfile will roll over in this case, but as pages and pages of legal papers are filed and responded to, it is becoming increasingly clear that the MPAA is determined to play hardball.

In a filing from Hotfile dated June 17th, the company bemoans the tactics employed by the MPAA, describing their requests for information as “over-reaching” and tantamount to “murder by litigation.”

So what data does the MPAA want from Hotfile? In a single word – everything.

“In five short demands for documents and two related interrogatories, Plaintiffs seek all data referring to all files hosted by Hotfile, all data about Hotfile’s users, all data about Hotfile’s business partners [aka affiliates], every line of source code ever written, and virtually every conceivable piece of financial data available regarding Hotfile or its business partners or its individual founders,” Hotfile’s legal time write.

Nevertheless, it appears that up to a point Hotfile is prepared to comply with the requests of the MPAA. However, as the tables below show, the company is trying to protect the identities of users and affiliates as much as it can.

The MPAA’s requests for disclosure go beyond user data. The Hollywood outfit is demanding that Hotfile hands over every version of the site’s source code that has ever existed.

Hotfile is currently resisting that request, describing its code as a trade secret which took two people more than 1,000 hours to create. Hotfile’s software gives it a competitive advantage, its legal team argues, and it would prove catastrophic if it fell into the wrong hands.

The case is becoming increasingly complex and is already developing into a bloody legal brawl. Will Hotfile continue to resist the temptation to settle in the face of “murderous litigation”, or will it concede defeat in the face of overwhelming opposition and financial resources?

Hotfile uploaders, downloaders and affiliates will certainly be hoping for the former.

Source: Hotfile Battles MPAA Over Private User Data Disclosure

The latter is often spoken of in rightsholder circles as “structural” infringement and a case outlined by Numerama takes the concept to a whole new level.

In 2007, Sébastien Budin, the former administrator of Station-Divx.com, was arrested for his part in running the site. In September 2008 the court hearings against him began, based on allegations of contributory infringement.

In March 2009 the decision against Budin was eventually handed down. The then 26-year-old was ordered by a court to pay compensation to movie and TV rightsholders including 20th Century Fox, Columbia Pictures, Disney Company, Paramount, Universal, Warner and Buena Vista.

The damages against him totalled some 130,000 euros ($185,000) and Budin was also handed a 3,000 euro fine plus a 1 year suspended sentence. Undeterred he lodged an appeal but this week the Court of Appeal in Lyon upheld the 2009 ruling.

Although one might get the impression that Station-Divx.com was a regular file-sharing site which provided links to copyright works, that wasn’t quite the case. While the site did list the names of popular movies and TV shows, it provided no hyperlinks to illicit content, no torrents and no direct downloads.

Instead, Station-Divx.com provided lists of keywords that people could type into search engines in order to find the movies and TV shows of their choice.

“My story boils down to running a site where we created an instance of keywords to find movies on eMule more easily. I did not offer any direct links, it was only information,” Budin explained.

This defeat is not the end of the road for Budin. He has confirmed his intention to lodge an appeal before the European Court of Human Rights.

Source: Site Admin To Pay $185,000 Damages For Providing Keywords

The mechanism preferred by the big recording and movie studios is the so-called ‘graduated response’ scheme, whereby Internet users are subjected to ever increasing punishments for their infringing behaviors.

Now, having faced resistance for so long, it seems that the MPAA and RIAA will get their way in the United States.

According to CNET, some of the country’s largest ISPs including AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon are close to striking a deal with Hollywood and Big Music to put in a framework of measures to progressively punish errant subscribers.

Although a final agreement is yet to be signed, plans are said to be “on track” and could be officially unveiled next month. The deal is believed to be structured as follows:

- Rightsholders track infringing Internet users and send notices to ISPs
- ISPs used this data to send warnings, called “Copyright Alerts”, to subscribers
- If subscribers fail to improve their behavior, further warnings will be issued

Eventually though, ISPs have agreed to get tough with customers who don’t heed warnings.

Sources quoted by CNET say that ISPs will be a given flexibility to select from a “menu” of sanctions, including throttling a subscriber’s connection through to limiting web browsing. One scenario would see the web almost completely removed, with access granted only to the top 200 websites. Other more gentle measures include copyright-awareness programs.

However, unlike the legislative changes already implemented in the UK, the range of sanctions in the US will not include the dreaded “3rd strike”, i.e complete termination of the subscriber’s account. Currently there is no mention of temporary suspensions either; they could prove a deal-breaker in this sensitive environment.

The agreements between the MPAA, RIAA and ISPs in the United States will be completely voluntary. The ISPs will insist that they are completely within their rights to amend their Terms of Service to accommodate such an agreement and will almost certainly do so quickly.

In March, during the House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet, it became increasingly clear that the US government would be backing voluntary agreements to deal with the subscriber end of infringement, rather than the legislative change approach favored for dealing with file-sharing and streaming websites.

“Voluntary cooperative solutions are a priority focus and we believe that, in combination with law enforcement action, voluntary actions by the private sector have the potential to dramatically reduce online infringement and change the enforcement paradigm,” said U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Victoria Espinel.

“We will continue to push forward to encourage voluntary cooperative actions on multiple fronts. Our ultimate goal is to reduce infringement online so we will continue to assess our approach to ensure that it is as effective as possible.”

The costs of the ‘graduated response’ will be shared between the entertainment industries and ISPs, meaning that regular Internet subscribers will, as always, pick up the enforcement tab.

Source: MPAA, RIAA, Major ISPs Preparing ‘Graduated Response’ To Piracy

The case went to the High Court but although Mr Justice Peter Charleton acknowledged that recording companies were being harmed by Internet piracy, he said that laws to cut off file-sharers were not enforceable in Ireland.

“It is not surprising that the legislative response laid down in our country in the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000, at a time when this problem was not perceived to be as threatening to the creative and retail economy as it has become in 2010, has made no proper provision for the blocking, diverting or interrupting of internet communications intent on breaching copyright,” he said in his judgment.

By not having this legislative mechanism in place, Justice Charleton said that Ireland is not in compliance with its obligations under European law. The only thing the courts can force an Internet host to carry out, he said, is the removal of infringing material.

Now, through its ‘Consultation on Amendment to Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000′, the Irish government is taking steps to change legislation to close this apparent loophole.

“It must be emphasised that this proposed amendment is not about the introduction of a statutory regulatory regime in relation to copyright infringement such as the French ‘Hadopi’ system or the ‘Three strikes’ regime set out in the Digital Economy Act in the United Kingdom,” notes the proposal.

Nevertheless, while they do not implement a statutory regime, adoption of the proposals could yield a similar result, a situation welcomed by IRMA.

“We have always been looking for the right to take injunctions against ISPs if they are not dealing with illegality on their networks,” said IRMA chief executive Dick Doyle.

The proposals published yesterday are open for public consultation with a closing date of July 1st, just over a week away. Submissions should be sent to IPU@djei.ie or posted to the Intellectual Property Unit, Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Kildare Street, Dublin 2.

The proposals come on the back of the news that due to an administrative computer error, in October last year Eircom wrongly sent out around 300 “first strike” warning letters to innocent subscribers. The error is now being investigated by the Irish Data Protection Commissioner.

Source: Ireland Set To Force ISPs To Disconnect Pirates

“The CBS Defendants have been the main distributor of LimeWire software and have promoted this and other P2P systems in order to directly profit from wide-scale copyright infringement. Internet users have downloaded more then [sic] 220 million copies from Defendants’ website, found at Download.com, since 2008,” the complaint reads.

As the case moves on some interesting arguments are appearing on the table. One of the most controversial items overlooked thus far concerns current Warner Music director and CNET co-founder Shelby Bonnie. Believe it or not, Bonnie served on the board of directors at Warner Music and was also the CEO of CNET, all at the time LimeWire was being sued.

As The Music Void points out, Bonnie was invited to join the Warner Music board in November 2005, just 4 months after the landmark Grokster ruling. At that time Bonnie was still CNET’s CEO, a position he gave up during the fall of 2006. After that, he continued to serve on CNET’s board of directors until March 2007.

Since it’s no secret that CNET made a healthy profit from the millions of LimeWire clients that were downloaded from its site every month, this could lead to the awkward conclusion that a prominent Warner Music director profited from piracy.

While it should be noted that LimeWire hadn’t been convicted of doing anything illegal at the time, it is quite unusual that the CEO of LimeWire’s main distribution platform was simultaneously a director of one of the record labels going after LimeWire in court (and launching numerous individual file-sharers).

It would definitely be interesting to hear the thoughts of the former CNET CEO on the issue, should he be called as a witness. Perhaps Bonnie opted to keep the healthy revenue stream alive until the court banned it, despite the massive losses Warner Music was claiming?

Whatever the case, the above must have been the topic of some heated discussions at the Warner Music board of directors. After all, it wouldn’t really be far-fetched to compare it to a Universal Pictures director who also serves on the board of The Pirate Bay’s hosting company.

Indeed, that would be quite unbelievable.

Source: Warner Music Director Profited From Piracy

One of these defendants was the Calgary, Canada-based Alan Phillips. The adult entertainment studio Corbin Fisher filed suit against Phillips, who they claim had illicitly shared two of their movies (“Turner F***s Austin” and “Keagan” ) on the BitTorrent tracker Gaytorrents.ru.

While most BitTorrent sites treat the private information of their users confidentially, the Gaytorrents.ru operator kindly provided the copyright holder with information that could identify the defendant.

This compliance by GayTorrents.ru allows Corbin Fisher to directly target defendants, instead of having to ask the court for a subpoena.

In the initial complaint Corbin Fisher alleged that Phillips willingly infringed on its copyright, and the studio’s lawyer Marc Randazza asked U.S. District Court judge John Houston to award $50,000 in damages per movie, totaling 100,000. Although Phillips complained to the court in an attempt to get the case dismissed, he did not defend himself.

Due to Phillips absence, Judge Houston was left with no choice but to order a default judgement as requested by the plaintiff.

In his ruling Judge Houston rejects the studio’s claim that the infringement was willful, just because Phillips was savvy enough to use BitTorrent. This reduced the maximum damages from $150,000 to $30,000 per movie.

Judge Houston did, however, rule that Phillips was guilty of copyright infringement.

“The record, as presented does not support a finding of willfulness based solely on plaintiff’s speculative argument that BitTorrent requires technical knowledge such that a person using the application necessarily used it in order to defraud plaintiff.”

“Thus, this Court finds that the increase in statutory damages suggested by plaintiff is not appropriately assessed here. In this Court’s view, statutory damages of $30,000 per infringed work, for a total of $60,000 plus attorneys’ fees is reasonable.”

In total Alan Phillips was ordered to pay $63,867, which makes it one of the largest fines ever handed out to a P2P user in the U.S. Certainly the highest we know of where a foreign copyright infringer was targeted.

“As a Canadian citizen, I do not recognize the applicability of US copyright law or the jurisdiction of a US District Court over me in this matter,” Phillips informed TorrentFreak in a statement. “For that reason I refused to formally participate in this civil action against me in a foreign court under foreign law.”

“Again, I am not a resident of, and have no economic assets in, the USA. So it is difficult to see how this judgment will affect me as written. To have this judgment enforced against me in Canada would require further judicial proceedings in my country, which I would, of course, be free to contest,” Phillips added.

The plaintiff’s defendant had something different to say.

“There are too many canadians who are under the mistaken impression that Canada does not respect copyrights,” lawyer Marc Randazza told TorrentFreak in a comment.

“Canada is a signatory to international copyright treaties, and thus Canadians need to learn that the border does not insulate them from illegal activity,”

“My client is delighted with the verdict,” he added.

Update: The people at Gaytorrent.ru (without an S) deny any involvement in this issue. More info here.

Source: Canadian BitTorrent User Fined $60,000 By U.S. Court

The first phase of the operation took place in June 2010 and resulted in the seizure of seven domains including TVShack.net, Movies-Links.TV, FilesPump.com, Now-Movies.com, PlanetMoviez.com, ThePirateCity.org and ZML.com.

Despite its domain seizure TVShack proved resilient, skipping from its .net to a new .cc domain and becoming fully operational within days. In time though, that URL was also taken over by the U.S. authorities.

However, some time later another TVShack site appeared, TVShack.bz. While some insisted it was the old site back under a new name, others claimed it to be a mere clone operated by different people. Whatever the truth, a disturbing picture is emerging around one of those sites, one that attempts to sidestep established copyright law and raises worrying jurisdiction issues.

Richard O’Dwyer is a computer science undergraduate studying at a university in the north of England. Originally from Chesterfield, the 23-year-old now stands accused of being the administrator of TVShack. It is not clear whether he is accused of running .bz, .cc, .net, or a combination of the three, but nevertheless he now faces the fight of his life.

Despite TVShack’s status as a links database that never hosted any copyright material, 3 weeks ago O’Dwyer was arrested by police and detained at Wandsworth Prison, the UK’s largest detention facility.

And now in a quite shocking development, authorities are demanding O’Dwyer’s extradition across the Atlantic to face copyright infringement charges in the United States.

Ben Cooper, a lawyer specializing in human rights and extradition issues, is representing O’Dwyer. He says that since O’Dwyer is a UK resident who ran a links site with a non-US server, any trial should take place on home territory, not thousands of miles away in the United States.

Cooper, of Doughty Street Chambers, is also representing alleged hacker Gary McKinnon in his fight against extradition to the U.S. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

This week, following a preliminary hearing before City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London, the notion that O’Dwyer should be extradited to the U.S. was described as “madness” by his mother.

“We have a perfectly good justice system in the UK – why aren’t we using it in cases such as this?”

According to David Cook, a lawyer who successfully defended an alleged uploader to the now-defunct music tracker OiNK and an administrator of the BitTorrent forum FileSoup, the answer to that question may be found in a case which came to its conclusion last year.

“In 2010, the rights-holder groups attempted the prosecution of the TV-Links website. As the name suggests, this site was effectively a directory to TV programmes that sourced programmes uploaded to other video websites, such as YouTube. The users of the site would find a TV show they liked, and then placed a link on TV-Links to other sites which were hosting episodes of that show,” Cook told TorrentFreak in a comment.

“It was argued that TV-Links was operating as a ‘mere conduit’ and that an EC based defence was open to them. Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament defines an ‘Information Society Services’ as one that offers a service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by means of electronic equipment and for the processing and the storage of data, and at the individual request of a recipient of a service.”

“This is a definition so dense as to be almost impenetrable,” Cook adds. “It was held in TV-Links that this definition covered their site.”

The ruling by Judge Ticehurst in favor of TV-Links meant that its operators had a complete defense in criminal proceedings in England and Wales for their linking to other web sites. They walked free.

All indications are that TVShack, in all of its guises, operated in a similar manner.

“We have been waiting to see how the rights-holder prosecutors would react [to the failed cases against TV-Links, OiNK and FileSoup] and have now been given the clearest sign,” Cook notes.

“The extradition of O’Dwyer is being sought and, if successful, he would be moved from a country in which he has a defence, to one in which such a defence would not apply,” says Cook. “Is this the sole purpose of the extradition?”

O’Dwyer has yet to enter a plea. He is set to appear in court again on September 12th.

Source: TVShack Admin Fights Extradition To U.S. On Movie Piracy Charges

However, the recent surge in BitTorrent related lawsuits has nothing to do with what copyright was ever intended for. The extortion-like cases we’re witnessing are in large part an attempt to turn piracy into a business, big business.

In total an excess of 180,000 “does” have been sued in recent months, and the majority of these people are still being pursued. What makes this mass-litigation scheme even more dubious is that many of the alleged infringers are not necessarily guilty, but often see no other option than to pay off the lawyers to get rid of the problem.

While browsing through the court dockets and many online forums, one can see several examples of defendants who claim to be innocent or misled, but have paid a settlement fee of roughly $2,000 because they see no other option. Hiring a lawyer can be just as expensive, without a guarantee that it would end the legal trouble, they argue.

A good example of the above is Ms. Stephanie Lin who recently received a settlement letter from the anti-piracy lawyer Gill Sperlein. The lawyer accused her of downloading a file titled “Tsubaki House – SnapShot #05,” which actually turned out to be an adult movie.

This is similar to other cases where defendants are accused of downloading mislabeled files, including “Piano.avi,” “Texas.Discografia.completa.rar,” “Visual Studio 2010.iso,” “Avatar.avi,” “Paranormal Activity.avi” and the previously covered “The Best Of Ryuichi Sakamoto.rar.” All the above turned out to be adult films to which Mr. Sperlein’s clients own the copyright.

In the settlement letter the lawyer says that Ms. Lin can make the case go away by paying $1,875, further noting that this is a limited offer. If the settlement isn’t paid within a week it will be increased to $3,375, a tactic that has been declared wrongful in the U.K. recently.

Unsure of how to respond to the letter, Ms. Lin posted a question at Justanswer.com asking for help. A lawyer replied quickly with some insight, but Ms. Lin nevertheless decided to settle the case.

“Thank you for your help, I payed the settlement fee. the story is end, they win. I don’t have time to make choose. they can get what they want from me because they know what will happen next but I don’t. I will always remember this. thank you again, my friend. sorry for my English [sic],” she wrote.

Ms. Lin is not the only one who has come to this conclusion. The option to settle is favored by many people, even those who haven’t downloaded the file they’re accused of. When adult titles are involved people particularly prefer to pay rather than face being named in a public lawsuit, especially if hiring a lawyer is more expensive than the settlement itself.

However, for some the problems are even worse, far worse.

Currently the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is looking into the case of Ms. Mayra Gonzalez, one of the many alleged file-sharers who are accused of downloading another mislabeled file. Unlike Ms. Lin, Ms. Gonzalez didn’t have $1,875 laying around.

In a desperate attempt to resolve the issue, she wrote a plea for mercy to both the lawyer and the judge handling the case. In the letter she explained that she attempted to download an album of Ryuichi Sakamoto, and that she had never intended to download the gay porn she’s accused of.

But lawyer Sperlein was not impressed, quite the contrary in fact.

Last week Sperlein let the court know that he intended to file a motion for summary judgment, because in his opinion Ms. Gonzalez had admitted her crime. This means that instead of a $1,875 settlement, she’s now facing a $150,000 damages claim. Needless to say, this turn of events only make matters worse for her.

Like many others in her position, Ms. Gonzalez told TorrentFreak that she is clueless about the legal process and what she should do next. She is unemployed and can’t afford paid legal representation. TorrentFreak brought her in contact with a few potential lawyers, but all either couldn’t represent here or would prove too expensive.

Desperate and uncertain, settling the case is suddenly one of the “best” options she has left, even though she never intentionally downloaded the file she’s accused of. This would be the same conclusion many other defendants reached before her, and one that does not necessarily represent justice.

Again and again it appears that file-sharers are an easy target for anti-piracy lawyers and the copyright holders they represent. It’s a sad conclusion, but unless the judges see through this dubious scheme many more innocent and misled victims will be ‘forced’ to hand over their cash in the coming months.

Source: File-Sharers An Easy Prey To Anti-Piracy Lawyers