TorrentFreak Email Update |
- ACTA Battle Nears Climax in Europe
- Mass BitTorrent Lawsuits Return to the UK
- RapidShare Declared Legal In Court, With a Twist
- Spanish RIAA Sues Blogging Professor for Defamation
| ACTA Battle Nears Climax in Europe Posted: 28 Mar 2012 04:38 AM PDT
The treaty, which is aimed at harmonizing global copyright enforcement globally, has largely been formulated behind closed doors and its critics fear it will only lead to censorship and surveillance of Internet users. The plan was to ask the ECJ to look at ACTA and decide if it conflicts with the EU's fundamental rights and freedoms, including freedom of expression and right to privacy. But despite De Gucht describing the referral as a “needed step” to “cut through this fog of uncertainty”, this will not now happen. Yesterday, the European Parliament’s trade committee rejected the plan to send the treaty to the ECJ with 21 MEPs voting against, 5 in favor and 2 abstentions, meaning that ACTA could now be put before Parliament as soon as June. Had ACTA been referred to Europe’s highest court, it would have meant a delay of one, maybe two years. This, according to activists, would have dampened the momentum of their anti-ACTA work which reached unprecedented levels and Europe-wide protests earlier this year. “Referring ACTA to the court is no substitute for the political procedure needed to check this agreement and determine democratically whether its entry into force is in the European interest,” said Pirate Party MEP and Shadow rapporteur on ACTA for the GreensAmelia Andersdotter. “Only a democratic ratification process via the European and national parliaments is able to provide such a judgment, and we therefore welcome today’s decision to continue with this process,” she concluded. ACTA will now be pushed through committees in the European Parliament during April and May and then to a final full Parliament vote at its June plenary session. “If ACTA dies in European Parliament, then it's a permakill, and the monopoly lobbies will have to start fighting uphill,” said Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge in a comment. “If ACTA passes, the same monopolists get tons of new powers to use, and close the door for the foreseeable future behind the legislators for a very necessary reform of the copyright and patent monopolies.” After its existence was first discovered by the public in 2008 after documents were uploaded to Wikileaks, ACTA’s opponents now have just 10 weeks to pull out the stops. Source: ACTA Battle Nears Climax in Europe
| ||
| Mass BitTorrent Lawsuits Return to the UK Posted: 28 Mar 2012 02:13 AM PDT
The solicitor at the center of that lawfirm, Andrew Crossley, was both fined and suspended from practicing law, which seemed to put a hold on similar cases. However, it didn't dissuade everyone. Yesterday, the UK's High Court approved a case involving UK pornographer Ben Dover (real name Stephen James Honey) and his company Golden Eye International. Now, ISP O2 will have to release the details of up to 9000+ subscribers listed in the document for Dover and Golden Eye. The precise number is unclear, as other companies that attempted to send letters through Golden Eye were denied the opportunity. It’s success at last for the pornographer, as he’s had several similar cases thrown out in the past including a partnership with 170-year-old law firm Tilly Baily Irvine which ended in sanctions last year. This claim process started 6 months ago, and with O2 stating they would not contest the case. Chief Master Weingarten, in response, suggested that Consumer Focus (a government funded body looking after consumer rights) represent the IP addresses – the intended defendants – in court instead, a role Consumer Focus accepted. Despite a strong defense, including pointing out all the issues with these kinds of actions, Weingarten approved the order, but with conditions. In perhaps a first for this sort of litigation, the court will be supervising the content of letters sent out to the alleged infringers, partly because of the ACS:law debacle. In particular, the one-sided nature of the letters – only indicating the consequences should the alleged infringer lose – was not deemed appropriate, being indicative of bullying. Instead consequences should they successfully defend themselves should also be included. Yet the most important part of the ruling is near the end, and might stop this practice once and for all; blanket fees to “make it all go away” are not acceptable. 137. Fifthly, I think that Mr Becker’s response in his second witness statement to the point made by counsel for Consumer Focus referred to in sub-paragraph 60(v) above is telling: “… it assumes that £700 will be successfully obtained from each of the 9000, when that is plainly wrong. In fact, it is likely that only a small proportion will result in a successfully obtained payment of any sum.” This comes quite close to an admission that the figure of £700 has been selected so as to maximise the revenue obtained from the letters of claim, rather than as a realistic estimate of the damages recoverable by the relevant Claimant from each Intended Defendant. In any event, that is the inference I draw in the light of the matters discussed above and in the absence of any disclosure of the information referred to in paragraph 88 above. 138. Accordingly, I do not consider that the Claimants are justified in sending letters of claim to every Intended Defendant demanding the payment of £700. What the Claimants ought to do is to proceed in the conventional manner, that is to say, to require the Intended Defendants who do not dispute liability to disclose such information as they are able to provide as to the extent to which they have engaged in P2P filesharing of the relevant Claimants’ copyright works. In my view it would be acceptable for the Claimants to indicate that they are prepared to accept a lump sum in settlement of their claims, including the request for disclosure, but not to specify a figure in the initial letter. The settlement sum should be individually negotiated with each Intended Defendant. No more fee demands. Instead they can only state that they will accept a lump sum payment as settlement, to be negotiated if the accused accept liability. Otherwise, it will be down to the courts. It also seems that after many cases, Chief Master Weingarten has understood that these cases are about profits, not protecting rights. Very little money and a lot of grief was the prediction we highlighted earlier this month, and that seems to be the case. Meanwhile, up to 9124 households are going to get a letter through their door talking about the porn they've allegedly downloaded. Let's just hope that the tracking software, claimed to be 'forensically accurate' (huh?) does better than in times past, or there's going to be a lot of needlessly embarrassed families, and unnecessary family strife when the postman calls. Source: Mass BitTorrent Lawsuits Return to the UK
| ||
| RapidShare Declared Legal In Court, With a Twist Posted: 27 Mar 2012 02:18 PM PDT
During the past several years RapidShare has made tremendous efforts to cooperate with copyright holders and limit copyright infringements. But this couldn’t prevent the company from getting involved in a handful of lawsuits against rightsholders. Two week ago, a press release published by copyright holders claimed that RapidShare had suffered an enormous defeat in court. However, now that the court has published its final decision, RapidShare is claiming a victory of its own. In the verdict of RapidShare’s legal dispute against the music rights group GEMA, the Higher Regional Court in Hamburg explicitly recognizes that RapidShare's business model is legal. This news is music to the ears of the file-hoster. "For the first time the Hamburg Higher Regional Court has followed our line of argument on key points and has conferred legal legitimacy on our service, just as other courts have done over a considerable period of time. This is a significant result for us," said RapidShare CEO Alexandra Zwingli. The court further ruled that RapidShare has no obligation to proactively monitor files that are uploaded by its users. Instead, the company has to monitor external sites that link to copyrighted files on RapidShare, and ensure these files become inaccessible. This is not a problem according to the cyberlocker. “That is exactly what RapidShare has already been doing for many years. If the Anti-Abuse Team identifies a download link on such pages which results in a file that has clearly been published illegally being on the company's servers, the file in question is immediately blocked.” Aside from monitoring forums and linking sites for infringing links, RapidShare has made several other adjustments to its service to decrease unlawful use. Most recently, the company limited the download speeds of “free” users to drive away pirates. Nevertheless, RapidShare objects to the fact that they have to carry out this monitoring based on a court order, and they will therefore take the case to the Supreme Court. "We are doing this of our own accord because we have a strong interest in ensuring that our service remains clean. We believe that being obliged to carry out such actions is questionable from a legal perspective. For this reason we will appeal the verdict to clarify the issue of proactive monitoring of external websites at the highest judicial level,” Zwingli said. The eventual decision of the Supreme Court may have massive implications. Not only for RapidShare, but also for the many other file-hosting services that operate in Germany. Source: RapidShare Declared Legal In Court, With a Twist
| ||
| Spanish RIAA Sues Blogging Professor for Defamation Posted: 27 Mar 2012 10:20 AM PDT
One of his arguments is that Promusicae, the well-known recording industry outfit, is violating antitrust laws. The group has set up a digital system to send music to radio stations for airplay, which the professor says is unfair since non-member companies and independent artists can’t join. The music group was not happy with this accusation and has filed a lawsuit against the IE Business School professor, claiming that he defamed the group and threatened their honor. Through the lawsuit Promusicae demands 20,000 euros in damages and a public apology. They claim that the accusations are false and state that “some of the information supplied on the website is false and violates the honor and good name of the group.” The professor, on the other hand, says his claim was well researched and that he consulted experts in competition law before he wrote it up. And even if that’s not the case, Dans believes he has the right to make such claims in an open and free society. “In short, what I said in the article was my opinion, protected by the right to freedom of expression and, as I documented it properly and professionally, the right to freedom of information.” ” I stand by my opinion,” he writes in a new blog post. “Of course it may be debatable, but even if it were not well founded and I was wrong, I can not think how it can be an attack against the honor of a society such as Promusicae.” Dans says the music group is only out to censor critics like himself. “The reality? Promusicae are using the ‘honor’ argument to restrict the right to freedom of expression and information. After many years of direct confrontations and repeatedly being humiliated in numerous public forums, now they want to shut me up through a lawsuit.” “They do not want to be mentioned or talked about,” Dans writes. The irony of the situation is that the lawsuit is having completely the opposite effect. The news has been widely covered in the Spanish media over the past 24-hours and it’s being shared in English too. A classic example of the Streisand Effect. Dans is now taking the opportunity to ask small labels and artists to help him prove his point. So instead of hiding the accusations through a lawsuit, Promusicae has made itself more vulnerable than before. Source: Spanish RIAA Sues Blogging Professor for Defamation
|
In a February announcement, EU trade chief Karel De Gucht said that following discussion with fellow Commissioners, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) 
Speculative invoicing – the practice of claiming people pirated files on BitTorrent, listing hundreds or thousands of people in one case to get details, then harassing them outside the courts for payment – was thought to be dead in the UK, after ACS:law collapsed last year.
In the aftermath of the Megaupload shutdown, people have been keeping a close eye on court cases involving other file-hosting services, RapidShare included.
Last summer, professor Enrique Dans wrote a | You are subscribed to email updates from TorrentFreak To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment