Last year the UK Government announced a plan to increase the maximum prison sentence for online copyright infringement to ten years.

The current maximum of two years is not enough to deter infringers, lawmakers argued.

The plan followed a recommendation put forward in a study commissioned by the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) a few months earlier.

This study concluded that the criminal sanctions for copyright infringement available under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) could be amended to bring them into line with related offenses, such as counterfeiting.

Before implementing the changes the Government launched a public consultation, asking for comments and advice from the public. This generated a lot of responses and this week the results were published by the IPO.

In total there were 1,032 responses to the consultation, and an overwhelming majority of 98 percent oppose the increased prison term.

There were only 21 responses supporting the plan, which all except one came from organizations. A total of 1,011 individuals came out in opposition, most of which used a submission form made available by the Open Rights Group (ORG).

Consultation response

The Government has released a summary of the findings (pdf) presenting the primary arguments from both sides. The opponents argue that prison term extension is not acceptable because the punishment would be too harsh.

“10 years is too high; copyright infringement is not a serious crime,” IPO summarizes.

In addition, due to the vague language employed, opponents are worried that the changes could lead to prison sentences for naive file-sharers who have no real criminal intent.

“The term ‘affect prejudicially’ is too vague and could mean someone facing a criminal charge where only a minimal amount of content has been infringed. This requires some threshold to ensure only commercial scale infringers are punished.”

The supporters of the prison term extension, including industry groups BPI, FACT and the MPA, argue that harsher sentences would help to serve as a deterrent, preventing people from pirating copyrighted works.

“Change would act as a powerful deterrent to those engaging in IP crime,” IPO summarizes.

According to the opponents there is no reason why online piracy should be treated differently than physical counterfeiting.

“It is important that creativity is respected and rewarded, and those who deliberately infringe or facilitate infringement should face criminal sanctions. Copyright infringement online is no less serious than that of physical, and therefore shouldn’t be treated any differently.”

The UK Government has not made any decisions yet on how to move forward but IPO notes that it will conduct an in-depth analysis of all the points raised. Any future legislation should take into account the public responses.

“This proposal has clearly struck a chord with many stakeholders, which is reflected in the high number of responses. As a result, the Government is now carefully considering the best way forward,” IPO notes.

“However, the Government remains committed to tackling those engaged in online criminality,” it adds.

The comments appear to suggest that a 10-year prison term may have been averted for now, but some sort of change to the current law is expected to come sooner or later.

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

In common with many other user-generated sites, Twitter is used by some of its members to host or link to copyright infringing material.

If rightsholders submit a takedown request, Twitter swiftly takes the infringing content down. Over the past several months the company processed thousands of requests and complied with most of them.

However, a new lawsuit filed in a California federal court suggests that Twitter’s takedown efforts are not always sufficient.

This week Wisconsin-based photographer Jennifer Rondinelli Reilly filed a complaint (pdf) against Twitter in which she accuses Twitter of hosting or linking to one of her works without permission.

After discovering the unauthorized use of her work the photographer sent Twitter dozens of DMCA takedown requests. However, according to the complaint Twitter failed to act on most of them.

“On November 18, 2015, Reilly sent 28 notices to Twitter regarding the Infringing Uses,” the complaint reads. “Twitter has not removed or disabled access to 50 of the 56 Infringing Uses.”

The complaint

At the time of writing several of the tweets still remain online, with many linking to a poster for the University of North Texas’ annual “Poetic Justice” showcase. This poster allegedly uses the copyrighted image without permission of the photographer.

One of the DMCA notices

While the DMCA safe harbor shields Internet services such a Twitter from being liable for the acts of their users, this may not be the case when the company structurally fails to respond to takedown requests.

According to the photographer the social network was aware of the infringements but chose not to take appropriate action.

“Twitter had actual knowledge of the Infringing Uses. Reilly provided notice to Twitter in compliance with the DMCA, and Twitter failed to expeditiously disable access to or remove the Infringing Uses,” Reilly writes.

Reilly demands an injunction against Twitter preventing the company from infringing her work and also demands both actual and statutory damages to compensate the losses she’s suffered.

This is not the first time that Twitter has been sued for copyright infringement. Just a few months ago award-winning photographer Kristin Pierson launched a similar case. It was dismissed soon after, suggesting that both parties solved the dispute behind the scenes.

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

In the final days leading up to Christmas, DVD screener copies of some of the hottest movies began leaking to the Internet. Several, including The Revenant and The Hateful Eight, went on to become Golden Globe winners earlier this week.

There can be little doubt that the leaks generated significant additional publicity that otherwise the films would not have enjoyed, but still the big question remains. Will these movies eventually reap the financial benefits of word-of-mouth marketing as a result of their early (not to mention illegal) online appearances?

The battle lines in this debate were drawn early with Hive-CM8, the group behind the leaks, setting out its arguments (by way of an unusual apology) in the dying days of 2015.

“Since everyone is now talking about [The Hateful Eight] we don’t think the producers will [lose] any money [upon theatrical release]. We actually think this has created a new type of media hype that is more present in the news, radio and in the papers than Star Wars, and the promotional costs for this were free,” the group said.

Perhaps needless to say, Hollywood doesn’t share the group’s view on the promotional benefits of giving away free copies of the latest movies before their theatrical release. Last week the producer of The Hateful Eight aired his displeasure and now its the turn of the powerful Copyright Alliance.

Counting the MPAA, RIAA, ESA, BSA, NBA and Getty Images among its members, the Copyright Alliance has more heavyweight entertainment industry support than any other lobby group on the planet. It’s fair to say that the words of its CEO Keith Kupferschmid echo the sentiments of most in Hollywood and he is not happy with Hive-CM8.

In a piece titled ‘Sorry Not Sorry’, Kupferschmid refutes the group’s assertion that their leaks will help movies like The Hateful Eight and pours scorn on their recent apology.

“It’s pretty obvious that Hive’s statement is self-serving, not to mention patently false and ill-informed. Even fellow Redditors derided the group. And while refuting most of their assertions is probably unnecessary, perhaps this incident can be used as a teachable moment,” Kupferschmid begins.

“Specifically, the false notion that piracy amounts to ‘free advertising’ is persistent and widespread. As demonstrated above, proponents contend that piracy is a good thing because it generates buzz that leads to increased sales that more than offset piracy’s harms.”

While discussion around the leaks has indeed been fierce in recent weeks, it’s almost unprecedented for someone like Kupferschmid to respond publicly to comments made by a group like Hive-CM8. It’s doubtful that the group will officially continue the debate, but the Copyright Alliance CEO is certainly clear on his position.

“In reality, Hive’s free advertising justification for ‘The Hateful Eight’ leak represents a fundamental lack of understanding about the film business and the creative industries in general,” he asserts.

“If marketing a new film, album or book was as easy as leaking it online, movie studios, record labels and book publishers would do it themselves. However, when releasing new creative works, the success of these works depends on creating new markets and consumer awareness, which requires far more than just dumping content online.”

Detailing components of The Hateful Eight’s marketing plan, which included a roadshow and the pirate-impossible 70mm Ultra-Panavision format, Kupferschmid underlines the efforts expended by the movie’s producers on the promotional front. He also makes it quite clear that simply dumping content online is a blunt-instrument in today’s complex market place.

“We live in a world where consumers have never had more entertainment choices. While this competition is great for the creative community and for consumers, it also means that connecting with consumers is more difficult and expensive than it has been in the past, and requires a level of creativity and ingenuity far beyond just simply leaking the creative work online,” he explains.

“The notion that a faceless group of Internet outlaws drives audience buzz – more than a creative team’s marketing campaign, advertising, and promotions – is patently absurd.”

There can be little doubt that the level of sophistication required for a leak falls short of that employed by the seasoned professionals involved in the marketing of a major movie. Nevertheless, leaks of all kinds persisted throughout 2015 and the industry still turned in a record-setting $38 billion box office bonanza.

While those kinds of figures make it more difficult for Hollywood to sell the notion that piracy is killing cinema, the idea that piracy is actually good for sales is dismissed by the Copyright Alliance CEO.

“It’s time for the claims that piracy is free advertising and good for creators to fade to black,” Kupferschmid concludes.

For now, Hive-CM8 remain quiet and it seems likely that their screener run has come to an end. There was some excitement a few days ago when a file titled DVDSCR.PACK.2015.XVID.AC3.HQ.Hive-CM8 trickled around one or two secretive private sites, but ultimately it was found to contain no new material.

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

Piracy monetization firm Rightscorp has often been criticized for its aggressive attempts to obtain settlements from allegedly pirating Internet users.

Little over a year ago, these claims were accumulated in a class-action lawsuit filed in California, where the company was accused of breaking several laws in their attempt to extract settlements on behalf of Warner Bros, BMG and other copyright holders.

One of the main accusations was the repeated use of robo-calls to alleged infringers. This bombardment of harassing robo-calls is a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the complaint alleged.

Over the past few months there haven’t been any significant updates in the case but behind the scenes the parties have been working hard to reach an agreement. This week they announced to the court that a settlement had been reached (pdf).

Although Rightscorp, Warner Bros. and the other defendants don’t admit to any wrongdoing, they agreed to take a loss and reserve a substantial amount of money to compensate hundreds of thousands of accused pirates.

This week both parties submitted the proposed settlement to the California federal court, asking for approval. According to the paperwork Rightscorp, Warner Bros and the other defendants will set aside $450,000 to resolve the matter.

“The settlement provides for a substantial benefit to the Settlement Class Members and makes available $450,000, minus Settlement Costs, to the estimated 2,059 Settlement Class Members established through pre-mediation discovery, as well as a valuable release of alleged claims Defendants have of copyright infringement for each individual class member,” the filing reads.

As part of the settlement all members of the class are entitled to $100 in compensation.

“Under the proposed settlement agreement, Defendants will contribute $450,000.00 to the Settlement Fund, and each Qualified Class Member who submits a claim and executes an Affidavit of Non-Infringement will receive approximately $100.00.”

The funds also have to cover other costs such as administration and attorney fees, so the actual compensation may have to be reduced depending on how many accused pirates claim their share.

As part of the settlement all accused pirates have to declare that they didn’t infringe any of the copyrighted works. Warner Bros and the other rightsholders will subsequently drop all copyright claims against them.

The $100 is substantially less than the damages that are generally awarded for a violation of the TCPA, which range between $500 and $1,500.

However, the paperwork points out that the accused pirates benefit from the fact that they are now off the hook for any potential copyright counter-claims, which could run into the billions for the entire class.

“Rightscorp identified 126,409 separate acts of alleged infringement, which implicate a theoretical range of $94.8 million to $19 billion in statutory damages,” the paperwork reads.

In addition to compensating the alleged pirates, Rightscorp also promises to prevent similar calls in the future without the recipient’s prior consent. This may make it harder for Rightscorp to extract settlements, which is another win for the class action members.

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

On December 9, 2014, the file-sharing world received a bombshell.

“There has been a crackdown on a server room in Greater Stockholm. This is in connection with violations of copyright law,” said Paul Pintér, police national coordinator for IP enforcement in Sweden.

More than ten police officers had entered a data center embedded into the side of a mountain in Nacka, just outside the capital. And with The Pirate Bay, EZTV and several other torrent related sites offline, it became clear this was no ordinary raid.

Days later it was revealed that police had held a still-unnamed key suspect in custody for a week.

“The suspicions relate to a violation of copyright law. Everything is being analyzed now and new hearings may possibly be held,” prosecutor Fredrik Ingblad said.

A major criminal investigation was clearly underway but months passed, seemingly without progress. In the meantime The Pirate Bay came back online, business as usual, leaving the authorities to try and pick up the pieces and join the dots.

But now, more than 13 months later, it appears that far from making significant progress, things are moving in the other direction.

In comments made to local media, Fredrik Ingblad says that the investigation into one of the key suspects in the case is now effectively over.

“Parts of the investigation are closed. And that’s because the police do not have the resources to analyze the seized hardware,” Ingblad says.

At least in part it appears that determination to leave no stone unturned contributed to the position police now find themselves in. During the raid police seized around 50 servers, some live, some from the datacenter’s storage rooms.

Also seized were computers and various servers owned by the former suspect but according to the prosecutor the task of analyzing the evidence they contain never properly got off the ground. Whether that’s due to sheer volume or possible encryption isn’t clear, but in any event it appears that very little has been done.

“These kinds of investigations take time, but in this particular case [the police] have barely begun to analyze the hardware and I have not received a plan when the police can start working again,” Ingblad says.

According to IDG, when questioned by Ingblad on their apparent lack of progress, police pointed to a lack of IT resources available to investigate the case. That, combined with a general lack of evidence to indicate that the suspect had committed any crime, means that the case against him was stood down.

Ingblad wouldn’t be drawn on questions of whether it’s common for cases to be dropped due to a lack of resources but conceded this was a first time for him. Describing his decision to drop the case against the suspect as unfortunate, Ingblad says the investigation into other suspects continues.

Precisely how many people remain on the police radar is unclear but it’s likely that Pirate Bay founder Fredrik Neij remains a suspect.

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