In 2011 and 2012, the US Navy began using BS Contact Geo, a 3D virtual reality application developed by German company Bitmanagement. The Navy reportedly agreed to purchase licenses for use on 38 computers but things began to escalate.

Amid negotiations to sell additional licenses to the Navy, the software vendor said that it discovered that the Navy had already installed the software on more than 100,000 computers.

According to a federal claims court complaint filed by Bitmanagement in July, that figure later increased to 558,466 computers. As a result, Bitmanagement demanded compensation totaling a cool $600 million.

Now the US Navy has returned fire, denying Bitmanagement’s allegations. In a response filed yesterday, the Navy admitted purchasing 38 licenses for BS Contact Geo but denies that the licenses were “limited” to installations on 38 Navy computers. “Concurrent-use network-installation licenses” of the software were obtained, it says.

“Defendant admits that the Navy installed BS Contact Geo onto hundreds of thousands of computers within its network starting on or about August 2013. Defendant denies that BS Contact Geo was installed on the Navy’s networked computers without Bitmanagement’s knowledge or authorization,” the filing reads.

“Defendant further avers that Bitmanagement modified BS Contact Geo for the purpose of allowing such installation, and that Bitmanagement received multiple updates regarding the status of this installation. Defendant denies that Bitmanagement did not license or consent to such installation and use of its software.”

In the original complaint, it was stated that Bitmanagement executives were “surprised” to discover that amid licensing negotiations the Navy had already installed almost 105,000 copies of the software on an equal number of machines. In its response, the Navy said that since Bitmanagement had already modified the software for this use, the installations should have been expected.

“Defendant admits that emails were provided to Bitmanagement in the summer and fall of 2013 advising Bitmanagement regarding the deployment of BS Contact Geo on the Navy’s network. Defendant admits that one such email indicated a successful deployment to 104,922 Navy computers,” the response reads.

“Defendant denies that the installations should have been surprising to Bitmanagement’s executives, and Defendant further avers that Bitmanagement modified BS Contact Geo for the purpose of allowing the deployment.”

Via the government, the Navy further denies that it accepted it had installed the software on more machines that it had licenses for, denies it knew that a license was required for each machine, denies that it knew that each unlicensed installation was an instance of willful infringement, and denies that Bitmanagement has suffered any loss.

In conclusion, the Navy insists that no copyrights have been infringed since Bitmanagement authorized reproduction and distribution of the software both “expressly and impliedly.”

The government also adds that as a German corporation, Bitmanagement’s claim “may be jurisdictionally” barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2502(a), but it doesn’t stop there.

“To the extent that Plaintiff’s claims are premised on ‘willful infringement’ or any other basis beyond the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b)…Plaintiff’s claims are barred by sovereign immunity,” it adds.

Finally, the government adds that Bitmanagement’s claim could be rendered null due to its failure to act when it knew any alleged infringement was taking place.

“To the extent that Plaintiff seeks recovery for any alleged infringement that resulted from Plaintiff’s failing or refusing to take such actions as is reasonably necessary to minimize any loss which it may have sustained, Plaintiff is precluded from any such recovery due to its failure to mitigate damages,” the response reads.

In closing, the government demands that the complaint against the Navy should be dismissed, with the government awarded all expenses including costs and attorney’s fees. With the sides so far apart, this one looks set to run and run.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

The past week has been quite a tumulteous one for U.S. politics. However, that doesn’t mean that the wheels hve stopped turning.

On the day that millions of Americans cast their vote, the Copyright Office posted a new notice in the Federal Register, asking the public for input on future copyright law.

Over the past year, the Government already received a lot of input on a possible reform of the DMCA safe harbor provisions. Various rightsholders weighed in, as expected, and so did technology companies, law scholars and civil rights groups.

The problem for the U.S. Copyright Office is that there’s little agreement on how to move forward.

The MPAA, RIAA, and other industry groups are calling for extensive revisions and don’t want services to “hide” behind their safe harbor protections. Among other things, they want a ‘notice-and-stay-down‘ policy to ensure that, once deleted, content doesn’t pop up elsewhere.

Many service providers, however, see this an unworkable solution and believe that the current system is capable of dealing with infringing content.

On the other end of the spectrum there are calls to implement penalties for abusive notices, so copyright holders can be punished for submitting takedown requests that are false.

The Copyright Office has reviewed the various positions, but it is still unclear on how to move forward. It has therefore posed a set of questions seeking additional guidance on various key topics.

For the notice-and-stay-down issue, for example, it wants a clear overview of how that would be organized, as well as the benefits and challenges it brings.

“Several study participants have proposed some version of a notice-and-stay-down system. Is such a system advisable? Please describe in specific detail how such a system should operate, and include potential legislative language, if appropriate,” the notice reads.

“If it is not advisable, what particular problems would such a system impose? Are there ways to mitigate or avoid those problems? What implications, if any, would such as system have for future online innovation and content creation?”

Another question deals with the difference in opinions about the effectiveness of the DMCA safe harbor system.

“How should the divergence in views be considered by policy makers? Is there a neutral way to measure how effective the DMCA safe harbor regime has been in achieving Congress’ twin goals of supporting the growth of the Internet while addressing the problem of online piracy?”

In total, the Copyright Office has listed sixteen questions. These also cover the “repeat infringer” issue for ISPs, which Cox took to the appeal court earlier this week.

While the previous consultations and hearings have already resulted in a lot of input, the new questions force stakeholders to offer something more concrete. No general overviews but pointed answers.

To help to determine the effectiveness of the current system, the Copyright Office also welcomes additional data and studies. Several parties are reportedly conducting empirical research which may help to make an informed decision.

The deadline for the submissions is March 8, after which the Copyright Office will try to reach its conclusions. The Copyright Office’s full Federal Register notice is available here (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Three weeks ago, Australian Hugh Atkin received a notification from YouTube, advising that a video he’d created had received a copyright strike.

At the time, Atkin told TorrentFreak that the video, titled ‘A Clockwork Trump vs. A Trumpwork Orange’, was intended as a parody.

“The video contains a parody of the trailer for ‘A Clockwork Orange’ featuring Donald Trump and compares it, side-by-side, with the original trailer for ‘A Clockwork Orange’,” he told TF.

“It was meant to be a satirical take on the alternately funny/violent/scary/profane/authoritarian nature of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.”

The claim against Atkin’s account was filed by Serendip LLC, the US-based company that represents Wendy Carlos, the composer of the music in The Clockwork Orange and other classics including The Shining. Atkin indicated to TF that he believed there had been some sort of mistake.

“I have given a DMCA counter-notification through YouTube and am awaiting a response, but, in the interim, I have a copyright strike against my account,” he explained.

We asked Atkin what part of the content the YouTube strike targeted – was it the music, the video, or both? He didn’t know.

“The claim doesn’t actually specify what copyrighted work is alleged to be infringed by my video. The first and only information I found out about Serendip’s claim was when I logged into my YouTube account this afternoon and saw the information in the screenshot below saying that a takedown notice had been received,” he told us in October.

The strike against Atkin’s account

However, the video in question (which is still available here) does utilize Wendy Carlos’ rendition of the William Tell Overture as featured in the movie. At this point, things began to feel very familiar.

Back in the summer, Serendip sued YouTuber Lweis Bond after he had used some of Carlos’ music in a Stanley Kubrick movie analysis. That case seems to have ended relatively amicably, but not before causing Bond considerable heartache. Now, it appears, Atkins is traveling the same road.

In a lawsuit filed in a New York district court, Serendip LLC is now suing Hugh Atkin for the unlawful use of Carlos’ music in his one minute video.

“Unbeknownst to, and without permission or license from Serendip, Defendant made derivative use of Wendy Carlos’s music arrangement and master sound recording works of the ‘William Tell Overture’, in the soundtrack of Defendant’s video, entitled ‘A Clockwork Trump vs. A Trumpwork Orange’,” the lawsuit reads.

It adds that Atkin uploaded the video around October 23, 2016, “with the apparent purpose of monetizing the video for his own benefit, and with his later stated purpose of ‘providing satirical political comment on the 2016 US Presidential Election campaign of Donald Trump’.”

Serendip states that in order for Atkin to have used the music legally, two individual licenses would need to be obtained: a synchronization license for the music arrangement and a master use license for the sound recording. The company claims that together these licenses cost as much as $60,000, although in some cases there is a minimum fee of $5,000.

“However, Defendant did not contact Serendip or Wendy Carlos, or anyone, to inquire about obtaining the required copyright licenses for music use in his video,” the company adds.

Serendip says that it chose to file its lawsuit after Atkin filed his DMCA counter-notice.

“On or about October 27, 2016, YouTube provided Serendip with a copy of the counter-notification, and notified Serendip and the Defendant that, as a result of the counter-notification, Serendip must file a federal court action within 10 business days or YouTube may reinstate the video to YouTube.com,” the lawsuit reads.

“Defendants’s acts of infringement have been willful, intentional, and purposeful, in disregard of and indifferent to Serendip’s right,” it continues.

“As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s infringement of exclusive rights under Serendip’s copyrights for the music arrangement and sound recording works of ‘William Tell Overture’, Serendip is entitled to statutory damages for each copyright.”

The company also demands a permanent injunction prohibiting Atkin from taking any action which further infringes upon Serendip’s copyrights “including, without limitation, uploading a video containing any such work to YouTube.com or any other website.”

When contacted by TF last night, Atkins had no idea he’d been sued.

“I did not know that Serendip had commenced proceedings against me. I only found out about the suit via your email, which was a rude shock to wake up to on a Monday morning in Sydney. The complaint has not yet been served on me,” he said.

“I received an email from lawyers for Serendip on October 29 in relation to the takedown notification which had been given by Serendip to YouTube under the DMCA and my counter-notification.

“I responded by letter on October 30 requesting further information about the alleged claim of infringement and otherwise denying any infringement. I never received a response to my letter, and my video was restored to YouTube last week. From their failure to respond, I assumed that Serendip was not pursuing its claim.”

As mentioned earlier, this case is very similar to the one filed against UK-based Lewis Bond. That case appears to have been settled somewhat amicably, but the details of any arrangement have not been made public.

From comments made by Serendip it appears that while in some situations a review, parody, or critique might be covered under fair use exemptions, neither Bond’s analysis nor Atkin’s parody directly reviews, parodies, or critiques Carlos’ music itself, only the movie A Clockwork Orange.

“At no time, does Defendant’s video comment on Wendy Carlos’s music in any way,” the lawsuit against Atkin reads.

Only time will tell how this one will end, but it seems very clear that Serendip is determined to defend its rights, even if that means going after relative small fry on YouTube.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

This week we have four newcomers in our chart.

War Dogs is the most downloaded movie.

The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are Web-DL/Webrip/HDRip/BDrip/DVDrip unless stated otherwise.

RSS feed for the weekly movie download chart.

Ranking	(last week)	Movie	IMDb Rating / Trailer
torrentfreak.com
1	(…)	War Dogs	7.2 / trailer
2	(1)	Jason Bourne	7.7 / trailer
3	(…)	Doctor Strange (Cam/TS)	8.0 / trailer
4	(2)	Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children	7.0 / trailer
5	(5)	Ouija: Origin of Evil	6.6 / trailer
6	(4)	The BFG	6.6 / trailer
7	(6)	Suicide Squad	6.7 / trailer
8	(…)	Mechanic Ressurection	5.7 / trailer
9	(3)	Finding Dory	7.7 / trailer
10	(…)	Sully (Subbed HDRip)	7.8 / trailer

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

When it comes to delivering tough anti-piracy action and rhetoric Down Under, few can match the efforts of movie company Village Roadshow.

In addition to holding ISPs responsible for piracy and having sites blocked at the provider level, the company is also threatening to track down and fine regular Australian file-sharers.

Village Roadshow co-chief Graham Burke is well known for his outspoken views on piracy, and now he’s encouraging aspiring filmmakers to express theirs via the ‘Unscene‘ short film competition.

First aired during the summer, the competition is now nearing its end-November deadline. Filmmakers of all abilities are invited to participate by expressing their views on how piracy will impact their future in the industry.

The competition is open to anyone over 18 and films are limited to five minutes duration. For the winner, there’s a cash prize of AUS$10,000 and film equipment up for grabs, plus a chance for their entry to be played before movies in Village Cinemas.

After submissions close on November 30, online voting via Facebook begins on December 1 and continues for the rest of the month. Finalists are announced January 15 and the winner will be revealed during a gala event on January 30.

Entrants are invited to “impress, inspire or upset” the judges (who include Graham Burke) but thus far all entries are towing the “piracy is evil” line, so the latter category will probably go unfulfilled.

Many of the filmmakers have been uploading their films to Vimeo without protection, so they can already be viewed. As can be seen from the handful embedded below, many follow a horror theme depicting a bleak future.

‘Echoes’ by Alessandro Frosali is particularly creative, but they all have something to offer in their own way. Thus far, no one has dared to put forward an entry that challenges the notion that piracy is not destructive, but there are still three weeks left to go, so anything could happen.

Turn off the lights, close the curtains. Piracy has never been this scary (NSFW).

Echoes | Unscene Short Film Competition Entry from Alessandro Frosali on Vimeo.

You've Been Warned from Natalie Carbone on Vimeo.

CINEMA. from Zoe Leslie on Vimeo.

Blackspot from Troy Blackman on Vimeo.

DEMONS OF THE FILM INDUSTRY from jesse wakelin on Vimeo.

The Pirates from Andy Burkitt on Vimeo.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.