TorrentFreak Email Update |
- Kim Dotcom’s Extradition Hearing Delayed Until 2013
- How Big Music Threatened Startups and Killed Innovation
- Court Shuts Down WordPress Based Pirate Bay Proxy
| Kim Dotcom’s Extradition Hearing Delayed Until 2013 Posted: 10 Jul 2012 12:24 AM PDT
The hearing, which would see Dotcom and alleged co-conspirators Mathias Ortmann, Finn Batato and Bram van der Kolk protest their extradition to the United States, was originally scheduled to take place next month in Auckland. Following agreement between Dotcom’s lawyer Paul Davison QC and the prosecution, it has now been rescheduled for July 2013. “It was inevitable that the hearing for August was going to be vacated because we have two existing cases in the High Court,” William Akel, one of Dotcom’s lawyers, told Reuters. Dotcom, however, took to Twitter to voice his complaints. “Dirty delay tactics by the US. They destroyed my business. Took all my assets. Time does the rest,” he wrote. “The NZ government is refusing an NZ resident due process and a fair defense. Shame on you [Prime Minister of New Zealand] John Key for allowing this to happen. Shame on you.” In recent weeks, legal arguments on a number of issues have further complicated the already controversial case, including an appeal of a court ruling last month that found the warrants used by New Zealand police to raid Dotcom’s Coatesville mansion in January were invalid, rendering the searches illegal. Earlier, a judge criticized the shipping to the U.S. of hard drive copies taken from Dotcom’s computers by the FBI, describing the act as “unlawful”. Last week, local prosecutors acting on behalf of the U.S. government argued in the High Court against an earlier District Court ruling that said Dotcom and the rest of the so-called “Mega Conspiracy” should be allowed access to the evidence set to be used against them in the extradition hearing. Prosecutors said there was no need for Dotcom, Mathias Ortmann, Finn Batato and Bram van der Kolk to see the evidence because they are not being tried in New Zealand. Their lawyers disagree, stating that it is crucial the information is examined in order for their clients to mount a fair defense. Source: Kim Dotcom’s Extradition Hearing Delayed Until 2013 |
| How Big Music Threatened Startups and Killed Innovation Posted: 09 Jul 2012 10:30 AM PDT
The interviewees are no lightweights. Included are former Napster CEO Hank Bank, Imeem founder Dalton Caldwell, Seeqpod founder Kasian Franks, Real Networks founder Rob Glaser, Scour VP & General Counsel Craig Grossman, former Gracenote CEO David Hyman, AudioGalaxy founder Michael Merhej, founder of MP3Tunes Michael Robertson, former RIAA CEO Hilary Rosen, and numerous venture capitalists and label execs. The result is an unprecedented report on how the shutdown of Napster chilled innovation, discouraged investment, and led to a climate of copyright law-fueled fear that pushed technologists and music further apart. It started with a drain on cash. Interviewees reported that venture capital funding for digital music “became a wasteland", a “scorched earth kind of place" housing a “graveyard of music companies.” With the big labels choosing where and when to sue, funding was hard to come by. Nevertheless, some innovators didn’t give up, although when the labels were through with them many probably wished they had. The report details instances where innovators tried to get label approval but found themselves in extremely difficult situations. One recalled that the labels "don't license you if you don't have traffic" but once enough footfall is achieved then "they want to get paid for 'infringement' and the longer it takes to license you, the larger the 'infringement' number they can justify charging you." Another described a litigation “Ponzi scheme” whereby settlements and other fees extracted from startups were used to fund the labels’ ongoing litigation strategy. However, like all Ponzi schemes there was a problem – maintaining momentum. “Once you stop suing new people there are no new settlements to pay for the ongoing litigation,” one interviewee reported. But the labels weren’t always unreceptive to new ideas – as long as they were bad ones. The report notes that the labels were happy to take "big, up-front fees" of "10, 20 million bucks" from startups they knew wouldn’t make it. Carrier reports that a leading officer from one label admitted that they would "cripple the companies by demanding such advances and guarantees that they go belly up." Established services couldn’t make progress with the labels either, even when they did everything they could to avoid copyright issues. One, that boasted several million users and “interest from top-tier VCs – really the top of the top," was also sued by the labels. “After they sued us, our opening offer to them was: 'You guys made your point; we will charge anything you want to charge, and you can take any percentage you want to take,” a respondent reported. “It was literally an offer of a blank check.” The labels refused and said they wanted the service shut down instead. But for those who didn’t give in to the threats life could get very difficult, not just for their companies, but for them as individuals. The specter of personal liability often raised its head. One innovator was told by the labels that his company would be left alone but he would be sued personally instead. “We can make all kinds of allegations and it's your job to prove you're not infringing," he was told, with the labels adding that the lawsuit would cost him “between $15m and $20m.” One of the respondents said it was “very scary” when the labels presented a "..multiple inch lawsuit for a couple billion bucks", one with the potential to hang over his head for "the rest of [his] life." The threats also extended to the families of innovators. One was told it was “too bad” he had children "..who are going to want to go to college and you're not going to be able to pay for it." Astonishingly, in some cases threats turned into actual violence. One respondent told Carrier about his experiences in the rap business of "people being physically intimidated" and "being hung out of windows." The strength of the threats were augmented by the uncertainty inherent in copyright law. One innovator said it was like a protection racket or the way politics work in corrupt countries where everything is OK until it's not OK. “You do what you want until one day you can't and they come and your tail light's broken." The full 63-page report, Copyright and Innovation: The Untold Story, is available here. Source: How Big Music Threatened Startups and Killed Innovation |
| Court Shuts Down WordPress Based Pirate Bay Proxy Posted: 09 Jul 2012 05:44 AM PDT
RePress turns any WordPress blog into a fully operational proxy. It’s a useful tool for people whose speech is restricted by oppressive regimes, but also handy for downloaders in the Netherlands, the UK and other countries where ISPs block The Pirate Bay. The plugin makers, hosting company Greenhost, showed off this capability by running their own Pirate Bay proxy on its servers. However, not everyone was happy with this censorship workaround. Because the proxy allowed the Dutch public to access The Pirate Bay, the Hollywood-backed anti-piracy group BREIN demanded that Greenhost take the proxy offline. However, the hosting company refused to do so and said it would only comply if presented with a court order. Last Friday, such an order arrived. The Court of The Hague issued an ex-parte injunction and gave Greenhost 6 hours to take down all the proxies through which the public can access The Pirate Bay. If the company fails to comply it now faces a 1,000 euro fine per day. The Court order is only directed at the proxies that were hosted by Greenhost. The WordPress plugin and proxies directed at other websites are allowed to stay up. Greenhost CEO Sacha van Geffen is disappointed by the Court’s decision and the fact that his company wasn’t heard in the matter. The hosting provider will now consider what judicial steps to take next. Previously the Dutch Pirate Party fought a similar injunction in court, but without success. After the court heard both sides the proxy ban was upheld. In addition, the Pirate Party was forbidden from encouraging the public to circumvent the Pirate Bay blockade and from listing or hosting tools that enable others to do so. While it is clear that BREIN will do everything in its power to enforce the Pirate Bay blockade, the effectiveness of their course of action is questionable. Even worse, it might even be counterproductive. Last week the Dutch Internet provider XS4All revealed that BitTorrent traffic on its network went up after they imposed the Pirate Bay blockade. All the media attention acts as promotion for BitTorrent, the ISP theorized. Source: Court Shuts Down WordPress Based Pirate Bay Proxy |
Kim Dotcom, the founder of Megaupload, the now-defunct site at the center of what is believed to be the largest copyright infringement case in United States history, will have to wait until next year for his extradition hearing.
Earlier this year | 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