The UK Government plans 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 argue.

The new proposal follows a suggestion put forward in a study commissioned by the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) earlier this year.

The 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. While the responses have yet to be made public, TF has heard from two prominent groups that are speaking out against an extension.

The British and Irish Law, Education and Technology Association (BILETA) shared a copy of their recommendations with TF. The group’s main conclusion is that changes to the current law are not needed.

According to the group the prison term extension is not acceptable because the punishment would be too harsh.

“…legitimate means to tackle large-scale commercial scale online copyright infringement are already available and currently being used, and the suggested sentence of 10 years seems disproportionate,” the group writes.

In addition, BILETA argues that the proposal is not affordable, not feasible and incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

“The freedom of expression may be interfered with if there is a ‘pressing social need’ and is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued,” the group notes, adding that the standards for a pressing social need are often not met in piracy cases.

If the Government decides to move forward with a change of law, the legal scholars suggest limiting the sentence for both online and offline copyright infringement to four years maximum.

Another organization speaking out against the proposal is the Open Rights Group. Executive Director Jim Killock tells TF that the Government inaccurately suggests that only large scale commercial infringers will be affected by the change.

“The proposal wraps up businesses and people who ‘affect prejudicially’ a copyright owner,” Killock says.

“There is no requirement of intent to harm, merely that the user should have known that they were violating copyright law. This makes the offense a ‘strict liability’, which is rare.”

According to the Open Rights Group the vague “affect prejudicially” definition means that heavy Pirate Bay uploaders or even those who merely share files could potentially be targeted.

“We believe it creates scope to abuse the law. It is hard to know what ‘prejudicial affect’ is. It is hard to estimate damages from online sharing or access. The fact that someone did not seek to harm a copyright owner is no defense.

“The result is that people who are not really criminals, but are rather just naive users, may face punitive claims. At the very least, the risk of criminal claims means naive infringers can be pushed into accepting heavy punishments to remove the risk of long jail sentences,” Killock tells us.

Thus far we have not seen any comments from groups supporting the proposal, but UK entertainment industry organizations such as FACT and BPI are likely to weigh in later.

The consultation is open until this coming Monday and the Government will release the individual responses and publish a summary report afterwards.

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

When Megaupload was raided early 2012, the U.S. Government seized 1,103 servers at Carpathia’s hosting facility in the United States.

More than three-and-a-half years have since passed and it still remains uncertain if former users will ever be able to retrieve their files.

A reporter who used Megaupload to store work-related data did take legal steps to secure his files. However, despite six requests asking the court to find a solution for the return of his data, there is still no progress.

Hosting provider Carpathia previously estimated that it cost them $9,000 a day to keep the hardware in storage. Nonetheless, the court urged the company to preserve the evidence and the hardware is still gathering dust at a Virginia warehouse.

If it’s up to Carpathia’s new parent company this will soon change. The company submitted a motion at a Virginia federal court this week asking for permission to destroy all data on the servers.

Carpathia Hosting was acquired by QTS which now owns all assets of the hosting company. This includes the Megaupload servers.

According to QTS the company shouldn’t be required to preserve the servers, not least because they have not been used in the ongoing lawsuit in recent years.

“As the successor-in-interest to Carpathia, QTS now requests judicial relief from the physical and financial burden of storing and maintaining the 1,103 computer servers at issue,” QTS’ lawyers write.

“As the servers have not been used for the purposes of any litigation since the filing of Carpathia’s Motion for Protective Order on March 20, 2012, QTS seeks an Order from the Court allowing for disposition of the servers and data,” they add.

After the servers were moved to a storage facility the costs of maintaining them has been reduced to $5,760 per month, but QTS sees no reason why it should continue to pay this.

Carpathia Hosting submitted a similar request to delete Megaupload data in 2012 but this was turned down by the court.

Kim Dotcom is not happy with the renewed request. Two years ago hosting company Leaseweb wiped hundreds of Megaupload servers so he believes that the remaining ones must be preserved at all costs.

“Obviously we will try to keep the data safe. Not only because it contains important evidence but also because we want to return the digital property to millions of Megaupload users,” Dotcom tells TF

“The Department of Justice has allowed the deletion of all Megaupload servers in Europe. We will try to stop them from doing the same in the United States,” he adds.

This view is shared by Megaupload’s lead global defense counsel Ira Rothken who plans to submit an opposition brief. According to Rothken the U.S. has to preserve the Megaupload data, as evidence and to allow former users to access their files.

“The Department of Justice is supposed to protect consumers. They are the department of justice for everyone not just Hollywood,” Rothken notes.

One option could be to let one of the other parties store the data, which has been suggested before. Soon after the raid Megaupload and Carpathia even came to an agreement to hand over the servers, but the Government blocked the plan in court.

The fate of Megaupload’s data is now in the hands of District Court Judge Liam O’Grady who will rule on the motion when all parties have had a chance to have their say.

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

Back in April the company behind the movie Dallas Buyers Club (DBC) won the right to obtain the personal details of 4,726 individuals said to have downloaded and shared the movie without permission.

As six Australian ISPs – iiNet, Internode, Dodo, Amnet, Adam Internet and Wideband Networks – stood by ready to furnish the information, the Federal Court told DBC it wanted to see copies of the letters the company would be sending to alleged pirates before releasing the data.

In June it became evident that DBC were seeking to interrogate Internet account holders over the phone, even going as far as to demand details of their salaries. DBC still did not reveal how much money they intended to demand from alleged infringers but in a ruling handed down this morning from the Federal Court, Justice Nye Perram details what happened next.

Early July, DBC provided a written submission to the court detailing four claims it intended to make against alleged pirates.

(a) A claim for the cost of an actual purchase of the movie Dallas Buyers Club.

(b) A claim relating to each alleged infringer’s uploading activities. DBC said it would seek to recover a one-off license fee from each individual that had uploaded parts of the movie to other BitTorrent users.

“It is not trespassing on DBC’s legitimate confidentiality concerns to say that the sum sought by DBC in relation to this head of damages was substantial,” Justice Perram writes.

(c) A claim for damages depending on how many copies of OTHER copyrighted works had been downloaded by each alleged infringer.

(d) A claim for damages based on the amount of money it has cost DBC to obtain the personal details of each alleged infringer.

Unsurprisingly, Justice Perram finds the claim set out in (a) to be both reasonable and with “certain biblical charm”. Equally, the judge feels that since DBC has spent considerable amounts tracking alleged infringers down and bringing legal proceedings, the amounts set out in (d) are also fair.

However, when it comes to the claims outlined in (b), Justice Perram has much less sympathy with the movie studio.

“The idea that any court would assess DBC’s damages on the basis that BitTorrent users who were going to share the Film over the BitTorrent network would have avoided infringement by approaching DBC to negotiate a distribution arrangement in return for a license fee is so surreal as not to be taken seriously,” the judge writes.

“If such a claim were made in a proceeding for copyright infringement in this Court I am satisfied that it would be dismissed summarily without trial….as a case having no reasonable prospects of success.”

In respect of (c) – trying to calculate damages based on OTHER infringements – the judge dismisses that too.

Essentially the judge found that DBC can claim for the price of the film and claim for a proportion of the amount spent on tracking down an alleged infringer, but if he is to allow the release of subscriber information, DBC are not allowed to ask for anything more.

However, that in itself raises a problem. Since DBC has no presence in Australia, the Court has no ability to punish the company for contempt if it fails to follow Justice Perram’s instructions. So, in order to make it financially unviable for DBC to go rogue, the Judge now requires DBC to pay a AUS$600,000 bond before any subscriber information is released.

While today’s ruling doesn’t preclude DBC from going ahead with ‘deterrent’ letters to alleged pirates with a small fee attached to cover their costs, it does turn their juicy cash cow into a giant pig. Few outside the company will be disappointed by that.

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

While millions of users upload videos to YouTube every day without expecting any reward, it’s possible for popular content to generate plenty of revenue through YouTube’s account monetization program.

New York resident Alfonzo Cutaia used the program last year when he sensed he had a hit video on his hands, but allegedly some news organizations didn’t play by the rules and now things have become messy.

Things began in 2014 when winter storm ‘Knife‘ buried parts of New York and surrounding areas under several feet of snow. On November 18, Cutaia was watching the storm coming over Lake Erie from his Buffalo office window when he decided to record events on his mobile phone.

Recognizing the potential for interest in his video, Cutaia uploaded his 32 second clip to YouTube. He gave it the title “Buffalo Lake Effect” and opted to generate revenue via YouTube’s monetization program. Cutaia selected “Standard YouTube License” and watched the hits roll in.

The recording did very well indeed. By the end of day one Cutaia’s video had been viewed more than 513,000 times. On day two things blew up with an additional 2.3 million hits and soon after the New York resident was receiving requests from news outlets – CBS, ABC, CNN, NBC, Reuters and AP – to use his footage.

But according to a lawsuit filed this week by Cutaia in a New York court, around November 18 Canada’s CBC aired the video online without permission, with a CBC logo as an overlay.

After complaining to CBC about continued unauthorized use, last month Cutaia was told by CBC that the company had obtained the video from CNN on a 10-day license. However, Cutaia claims that the video was used by CBC and its partners for many months, having been supplied to them by CNN who also did not have a license.

In his complaint, Cutaia seeks injunctions against both CBC and CNN to stop further unlawful use of his video. He also accuses the news outlets of “intentional and willful” copyright infringement and seeks appropriate damages.

Interestingly, the lawsuit also claims that both CBC and CNN violated the DMCA when the companies ‘liberated’ it from the YouTube system and offered it for viewing elsewhere.

“In order to infringe the Storm Video, CBC [and CNN] circumvented Cutaia’s technological measures limiting access to the Storm Video, without authorization, in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(a),” the lawsuit reads.

“By its reproduction and alteration to the Storm Video, CBC [and CNN] intentionally removed and/or altered the copyright management information of the Storm Video, without authorization, in violation of U.S.C. § 1202(b)(1)”

CBC and CNN are also accused of distributing the video despite knowing that the copyright management information had been removed.

In closing, Cutaia seeks permanent injunctions against CBC and CNN, accuses them of varying degrees of copyright infringement, while demanding a jury trial to determine damages.

In the meantime “Buffalo Lake Effect” continues to perform well on YouTube. By July 2015 the video had been viewed more than 3.68m times.

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

Ever since the rise of peer-to-peer file-sharing more than 15 years ago, the practice has become closely connected to copyright lawsuits. Initially sites and services became entertainment industry targets but in time Joe Public became the focus of legal action.

From around 2003 the practice was led by the RIAA but after five years targeting tens of thousands of people (a loss-making exercise focused on sending an ‘educational’ message), the music industry decided to back off. Soon after, however, a new group of plaintiffs would hit the scene, arguably more cynical than the labels had ever been.

So-called ‘copyright trolls’ have been on the rise in the United States since 2008 but really took off in 2011/2012 and there has been no let up since. Porn companies have been the most aggressive by a long way, a fact confirmed by a new report just published by legal analytics firm Lex Machina.

Spanning all copyright litigation since 2009, the report dedicates a section to the activities of trolls and the outcomes of almost 6,000 file-sharing related cases. For those who follow file-sharing cases closely, it comes as little surprise to read that one company in particular leads the way.

Out of more than 6,050 cases filed since January 2009, adult movie company turned copyright troll Malibu Media leads the way with a staggering 4,332. That total not only makes the company the most litigious in the file-sharing space, but also the most litigious copyright plaintiff in the United States, period.

Malibu Media’s excesses in this area are further underlined when comparing them to other companies engaged in similar activity. The company set up to pursue downloaders of the movie Dallas Buyers Club sits in second place with a relatively measly 274 cases, fifteen times fewer in volume than Malibu.

The remaining places are heavily occupied by adult movie copyright trolls interspersed with the likes of Manny Film and Voltage Pictures.

Perhaps of most interest is how these thousands of cases are concluded. In their threatening letters to alleged file-sharers, all of the above warn of court cases and massive damages if an arrangement isn’t reached. However, according to the report only 137 cases went to court in the period, with 126 concluded via default judgment, 10 via consent judgment and just a single case settled via full trial.

Overall, it’s estimated that 90% of all file-sharing cases are concluded with some kind of settlement. That’s compared to a 64% settlement rate evident in other copyright cases.

Given the volume of cases filed it’s no surprise that Malibu Media are out in front with both cases in court (66) and total damages received ($3.05m). However, the people behind the animated movie Zambezia are more efficient, with more than $330K culled from just three cases.

The majority of damages awarded come from default judgments ($4m) with consent judgments accounting for just $0.6m. Awards from judges total a relatively meager $100,000.

Also of interest are the locations where most copyright troll cases are being filed.

“File sharing cases are concentrated most highly in the Northern District of Illinois (936), followed by the District of Colorado (601) and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (580),” the report notes.

In recent times the District of New Jersey has become the district of choice, setting a record of 139 cases filed in the first quarter of 2015.

Interestingly these locations can provide an indicator of the kind of damages a file-sharer can expect if he or she fails to appear in court to mount a defense.

“Among the top 20 busiest districts awarding statutory damages for consent or default judgments, the Southern District of Indiana stands out for having the highest median award ($51,800),” the report notes.

In second place sits the Western District of Michigan ($38,300) followed by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Northern District of Indiana (both
$36,000).

Statistically, cases in the District of Oregon prove less expensive for defendants. After handling eight cases, the Court awarded an average of less than $1,000 to the plaintiffs.

With more and more cases being filed every single week, the copyright troll phenomenon is showing no signs of letting up in the United States. It is clearly a profitable exercise for many involved, Malibu Media in particular, to the point where it’s now considered a revenue stream in its own right.

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