Difficulties associated with gathering evidence against BitTorrent users have led authorities in Sweden to concentrate on file-sharing cases where large-scale infringement can be more easily shown. That has been achieved by going after users of systems such as DirectConnect, where proving the distribution of thousands of tracks is a much easier prospect.

However, while going after individuals sharing an album or two on BitTorrent usually amounts to an endless and expensive task, music labels are very happy to make exceptions. One of the industry’s pet hates are album pre-releases, and for those they are prepared to commit significant resources.

One such case concluded yesterday dates back to early June 2011 when a copy of Beyonce’s album ’4′ appeared online more than two weeks ahead of its official launch. An investigation carried out by the IFPI and anti-piracy company DtecNet (now MarkMonitor) led them to an IP address registered to a woman in Gothenburg. It was later established, however, that she was not the only one with access to her Internet account.

Also using her wireless connection was a neighbor, a then 47-year-old man. IFPI and Sony Music Entertainment said he uploaded the album to the Internet during June 8 2011, 16 days before the album’s June 24 launch.

Revelations that the man worked in the industry as a DJ and music producer added interest to the case, however it later became clear that he was not the source of the original leak. Torrent site records show the album was uploaded at least the day before but that didn’t matter to prosecutor Henrik Rasmusson, who stated that a pre-release is still a pre-release, no matter who released it first.

In interviews with the police the man protested his innocence, stating that he only believed he had been downloading the album for personal use, something he believed was permissible in Sweden.

“I had no idea when the Beyoncé album would be released, these days it’s almost impossible to know when the release takes place,” he explained. “If I downloaded the album illegally from a site such as The Pirate Bay, I would not have had a clue that it was a pre-release of the record or not.”

Of course, since BitTorrent is a two-way protocol he necessarily became an uploader too, something which exposed him as a pre-releaser of the album, despite his protests.

Earlier this month the man went to court for a two-day trial, with the now 48-year-old standing accused of breaches of copyright law. Hanging in the background was a huge $233,000 damages claim from Sony Entertainment, who said that the leak had not only damaged its marketing strategy and sales revenues, but had also hurt its relationship with Beyonce whose reputation had been damaged.

After much drama and deliberation, yesterday the sentence was handed down. The man was found guilty of copyright infringement but the verdict was hardly the scary affair the IFPI and Sony had hoped for.

In the event the court rejected imprisonment and handed down punishment based on the ‘day-fine’ system, which ranks the severity of the offense (in this case 80) and then multiplying that by the defendant’s daily income minus certain expenses.

Grand total – $1,200.

“They tried to make an example of me to intimidate both Swedish and foreign citizens,” said the 30 year veteran of the music industry. “Given that Swedish taxpayers have had to pay for this it smells a little bad.”

De-escalating matters further, it’s also believed that Sony has withdrawn its claim for damages. If true, that suggests that the music industry’s switch to chasing down BitTorrent users has proven just as time-consuming, costly and ineffective as observers believed it would.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and VPN services.

Notorious movie and TV show streaming site Kino.to has long since closed and its operators punished, but its legacy lives on in the legal realm.

The current dispute involves Austrian ISP UPC Telekabel Wien and movie companies Constantin Film Verleih and Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft. The film companies complained that the ISP was providing its subscribers with access to Kino.to which enabled them to access their copyrighted material without permission.

Interim injunctions were granted in the movie companies’ favor which required the ISP to block the site. However, the Austrian Supreme Court later issued a request to the Court of Justice to clarify whether a provider that provides Internet access to those using an illegal website were to be regarded as an intermediary, in the same way that the host of an illegal site might.

In his opinion handed down today, Advocate General Pedro Cruz Villalón said that the ISP of a user accessing a website said to be infringing copyright should also be regarded as an intermediary whose services are used by a third party, such as the operator of an infringing website.

This means that the ISP of an infringing site user can be subjected to a blocking injunction, as long as it contain specifics on the technicalities.

“The Advocate General is of the view that it is incompatible with the weighing of the fundamental rights of the parties [freedom of information, freedom to do business, copyright protection] to prohibit an internet service provider generally and without ordering specific measures from allowing its customers to access a particular website that infringes copyright,” the opinion reads.

“However, a specific blocking measure imposed on a provider relating to a specific website is not, in principle, disproportionate only because it entails not inconsiderable costs but can easily be circumvented without any special technical knowledge. It is for the national courts, in the particular case, taking into account all relevant circumstances, to weigh the fundamental rights of the parties against each other and thus strike a fair balance between those fundamental rights,” the adviser notes.

The Advocate General also notes that operators of piracy-related websites and their hosts often base themselves outside Europe or take steps to mask their identities. This, he says, makes it difficult to bring cases before the courts. Nevertheless, whenever possible rightsholders must first issue claims directly against site operators or their providers.

The legal opinion is not legally binding and the Court of Justice is entitled to disregard it, but the Court often follows the AG’s advice in such cases. Deliberations in the Kino.to case are just beginning and a judgment will be handed down at a later date.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and VPN services.

It’s been a rough few months for Pirate Bay co-founder Gottfrid Svartholm. After being sentenced in Sweden on hacking related charges, he will be extradited to Denmark this week to stand trial in a similar case.

As if that’s not enough trouble, Svartholm has now been dragged into a prominent Russian piracy case.

The case in question is one of the first under Russia’s new anti-piracy law and was initiated by several major media companies including Gazprom Media, Non-Stop Production and Star Media.

The copyright holders have targeted several websites, including the popular Rutor.org, which are accused of distributing their content without permission. The list of pirated titles includes the movies Stalingrad and Legend 17 as well as the TV series Game of Thrones and Boardwalk Empire.

While Svartholm is not believed to be directly involved in the case, his name appeared as the domain name registrant for Rutor.org and Kinozal.tv. In addition, PRQ, the hosting company created by the Pirate Bay founder, is listed as the registrant organization.

Following a verdict released by Moscow City Court this week, Svartholm is now being held responsible for the copyright infringements that take place though these two sites.

The court has therefore ordered him to stop the distribution of these copyrighted works by changing the domain name information, and pay the fees for the publication of the verdict.

Rutor Whois

Commenting on the case, a representative for the plaintiffs says that copyright holders “do not care who the ultimate owner of the site is,” as long as the infringing material is rendered unavailable.

Russia’s new anti-piracy law can be used to block IP-addresses or make domains unavailable. This effectively means that domain registrars and hosting companies can be held liable for the infringing actions of their clients.

It is unknown to what extent the court has researched whether Svartholm still has control over the domain name information or how he is supposed to comply with the ruling during his incarceration.

If the authorities plan to bring Svartholm to justice on their home turf should he fail to take action, they will have to get in line behind Denmark.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and VPN services.

Protecting the interests of Hollywood, the MPAA has been heavily involved in numerous anti-piracy efforts around the world in recent years.

From the pro-SOPA lobby in the United States through the iiNet case in Australia and the Megaupload shutdown, the MPAA has worked hard to target piracy around the globe. Perhaps related to these increased anti-piracy efforts, the six major movie studios backing the MPAA nearly increased their investment in the group by 50% over a two year period.

This conclusion comes from the latest tax filing submitted to the IRS by the MPAA a week ago, covering the fiscal year ending December 31st 2012. The paperwork reveals that the movie studios increased their membership dues from $41.5 million in 2010 to $59.7 million two years later.

Total revenue increased from $48.6 million to $66.8 million in the same period. Interestingly and despite the sizable increase in funds, the MPAA cut nearly 20% of its employees to 200 in 2012, down from 247 two years earlier.

The latest tax papers picked up by Variety reveal that MPAA boss and former senator Chris Dodd is handsomely compensated with an income of $3.3 million a year.

MPAA’s Global General Counsel, Henry Hoberman, is the second best paid executive (+$700,000), followed by MPAA’s Senior Vice President Michael O’Leary (+$600,000). Robert Pisano, who stepped down as MPAA president in 2011, also received a severance payment of $1 million.

MPAA revenue

The paperwork further reveals that the Copyright Alert System cost the MPAA $475,000 in 2012, which is roughly a quarter of the total budget the new anti-piracy system was awarded that year.

Looking at some of the other expenses we see that the MPAA’s lobbying outlays remained relatively stable at $4.8 million. Legal costs were $10.3 million, and didn’t change much compared to the previous year.

Every year the MPAA also hands out several grants and in 2012 this included $127,150 to the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI). The purpose of the grant is to “promote the film industry,” and perhaps in an effort to do so, IPI president Tom Giovanetti recently attacked our news reporting.

Another grant that’s not without controversy is the $100,000 Carnegie Mellon University received to start its “Initiative for Digital Entertainment Analytics.” A recent study from these researchers found that the Megaupload shutdown boosted movie industry revenues, a finding that aids the MPAA in its lobbying efforts.

While the MPAA’s budget increase over the past two years is notable, the $59.7 million paid by the Hollywood studios is still significantly lower than the $84.7 million they paid in 2007.

However, if the MPAA continues to book successes such as the recent isoHunt shutdown, the IMAGiNE bust, and the convictions of several streaming site operators, its budget may fully recover to that level in the years to come.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and VPN services.

“The United States continues to have serious concerns regarding the inability of rights holders to secure legal redress in Switzerland in cases involving copyright piracy over the Internet,” the USTR’s 2013 Special 301 report reads.

“The United States strongly encourages Switzerland to demonstrate its commitment to copyright protection and to combating online piracy vigorously, including by taking steps to ensure that rights holders can protect their rights,” it adds.

The admonishment could’ve been worse. In its submission to the USTR the International Intellectual Property Alliance recommended that Switzerland be placed on the Watch List, complaining that around 35% of Swiss Internet users access unlicensed services in any given month. But the problems don’t stop there.

“The country has become an attractive haven for services heavily engaged in infringing
activity,” IIPA said, noting that Internet companies were moving their headquarters and servers to Switzerland. “From there, they provide a global service, effectively turning Switzerland into a major exporter of pirated content.”

In addition to a file-sharing portal friendly environment, U.S. rightholders are concerned by the Swiss attitude to regular file-sharing. Even when Swiss citizens obtain content from illegal sources, downloading copyrighted material for personal use is currently completely legal.

Only a change in the law can reverse that situation and with that in mind the USTR has made it clear to Switzerland that it is monitoring the work of AGUR12, a working group responsible for identifying the possibilities that exist for adapting copyright law to technical developments.

That process includes “ensuring an appropriate remuneration for the use of copyright-protected content” – i.e the combating of piracy. Like so many similar talks in recent years including ACTA and TPP, the discussions are being held largely in secret.

Copyright lawyer Martin Steiger reports that the U.S. Government (through its Swiss Embassy) and the entertainment companies (though local anti-piracy group SAFE) are actively participating in the talks. It comes as no surprise then that the group’s proposals have gone in the direction they have.

According to a report obtained by NZZ am Sontagg, AGUR12 have concluded that Swiss Internet service providers should be forced to delete content if hosted on Swiss-based sites. Most controversially their final report, which is now being sent to the Justice Minister, states that ISPs should display warnings when users attempt to access unauthorized content sources while “obviously illegal sites” should be rendered entirely inaccessible.

After not being invited to participate in the working group, ISPs are less than impressed with its conclusions, particularly as they suggest a march towards a change in the law.

“The Justice Department [will take measures] that affect the Internet and hosting providers but have not invited them to the working group. Accordingly, useless ideas have now emerged,” says Franz Grüter, managing director of ISP Green.ch

But while ISPs in the UK are now completely accommodating when faced with a blocking request from Hollywood or the music industry, the culture in Switzerland is quite different. Grüter says that in order to block a user, ISPs will have to monitor his or her traffic, a notion he rejects.

“Internet providers would have to become Internet police that would monitor their clients. This is moving towards censorship and arises from a totalitarian approach,” he says.

The idea was also condemned by Andrej Vckovski, president of industry association Simsa.

“We reject the monitoring of Internet traffic on principle, because to have exceptions opens a dangerous door. Suddenly, it would be conceivable, for example, to filter political content,” Vckovski said.

Of course, there is a conflict of interests. Currently the working group appears to have no proposals to criminalize file-sharing for personal use, but on the other hand they foresee a situation where the sites from where those files are obtained being blocked by ISPs.

Quite what kind of warnings the working group would require on sites isn’t clear, but warning people that they are about to engage in an entirely legal activity isn’t likely to carry much of an impact, especially since there is no Netflix or similar service currently available in Switzerland.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and VPN services.