After being honored with an Oscar for Best Motion Picture last year, the makers of The Hurt Locker went on to secure the award for the biggest file-sharing lawsuit a few months ago.

By targeting at least 24,583 alleged BitTorrent users, Voltage Pictures hoped to recoup millions of dollars in settlements to compensate the studio for piracy-related losses. And so it happened.

After former RIAA-lobbyist Judge Beryl Howell signed off on the subpoenas, the suspected infringers were asked to pay thousands of dollars to settle their case, or else.

As the case dragged on, the major roadblock for Voltage Pictures turned out to be the Internet providers, who were often only releasing the personal details of a few dozen defendants each month. As a result, the Hurt Locker makers had to file extension after extension to keep the case alive. Judge Howell eventually ran out of patience and decided not to grant a new extension this month, thereby closing the case.

Although this appears to be good news for the tens of thousands of defendants, a range of questionable actions from Voltage Picture’s law firm Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver suggests that they might be in for a surprise.

Over the past months TorrentFreak talked to several defendants who were notified by their Internet providers that Voltage Pictures had sent a subpoena to reveal their personal details. By itself this is nothing new, were it not for the fact that these people’s IP-addresses were among the thousands that were dismissed from the case weeks earlier.

It turns out that after removing IP-addresses from the complaint, the lawyers were asking the ISPs for identifying information of the account holders anyway. Initially we thought that this must have been an isolated incident, but after contacting some lawyers we heard that it was most certainly not.

Speaking to TorrentFreak, BitTorrent defense lawyer Robert Cashman described the actions as unethical and sanctionable, and told us that the Judge would probably not allow this to happen if she knew what was going on.

“I am having this same issue with a potential client,” Cashman said. “As far as I know they cannot have the names from the ISP as the IP-addresses no longer belong to putative defendants,” he said. “A number of in-house attorneys at one of the ISPs are looking into the issue now to determine whether or not to comply with the request.”

From the people we talked to thus far we heard that at least some ISPs have complied, probably because the ISPs nor the defendants knew that the IP-addresses were no longer listed as defendants. Questionable behavior to say the least, but it gets worse, much worse.

BitTorrent defense lawyer Blair Chintella informed us that aside from going after dismissed defendants, the lawyers are also targeting people who’ve never been listed as a defendant in the first place. In a separate article Chintella provides additional background on the issue, where he believes Voltage Picture’s lawyers are out-of-order.

“Recently I’ve been contacted by one or more people whose alleged IP addresses aren’t listed in the court records,” Chintella says. “This appears to be not only an ethical violation but a legal issue giving rise to one or more claim under state or federal law.”

So it appears that the lawyers were using the court subpoenas to get the personal details of people whose IP-addresses were never listed in any complaint. Although it’s not clear how many times this has occurred, it’s possible that the lawyers went after thousands more people than they told the court.

To get their take on the situation, TorrentFreak contacted law firm Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver, but received no response.

While it’s clear that the practices outlined here warrant further investigation, it is doubtful that they will be looked into as the case is now officially closed. People who have recently received a settlement letter should remain vigilant though, as the Hurt locker makers may start to file individual lawsuits.

Meanwhile, the number of people sued in the US for alleged BitTorrent downloads has surpassed 250,000, and new mass-lawsuits are added every week.

Source: Hurt Locker BitTorrent Lawsuit Dies, But Not Without Controversy

Popularity: 1% [?]

In recent months thousands of US BitTorrent users have been sued for allegedly having shared movies such as The Hurt Locker and Far Cry. Because the settlement amount proposed by the copyright holders is less than hiring a defense lawyer, many defendants have not sought legal representation. Acknowledging this injustice, attorney Graham Syfert is now offering a cheap solution to the problem.

The U.S. Copyright Group (USCG) has been all over the news in recent months. The lawyer group sued thousands of BitTorrent users who allegedly file-shared motion pictures belonging to their clients, including the Oscar-winning Hurt Locker and more obscure titles such as Far Cry and Call of the Wild.

On behalf of the copyright holders, USCG has already sent settlement offers to many affected BitTorrent users. To settle the case the alleged copyright infringers have to pay up to $2,500 or face the risk of higher penalties in a full-blown court case.

The problem with this scheme is that defendants have few viable options to defend their rights. Hiring an attorney often costs more than the settlement amount, and ignoring the settlement offer might lead to an even worse outcome.

Two months ago the EFF published a list of attorneys that could help advise and possibly represent subpoena targets. Although this is a great pointer for individuals who don’t know where to get decent legal representation, all the listed attorneys still ask hundreds of dollars or more for their services.

Attorney Graham Syfert of the Affinity Law Firm is one of the lawyers listed by the EFF, and like the others he has been contacted numerous times by those targeted by USCG. Although Syfert is willing to help them all, for many the costs of hiring an attorney are simply too high.

“One of the major problems that people encounter when trying to hire me on these cases, is that a settlement is approximately what an attorney would need to even begin a defense,” Syfert told TorrentFreak.

To address this issue, Syfert decided to prepare several documents that allow defendants to represent themselves. The forms for pro se (self help) representation include a Motion to Quash, Motion to Dismiss, Affidavit in Support and a Motion for Protective Support. All forms are fillable and are accompanied with detailed instructions of how they should be used.

In preparing the documents, Syfert collaborated with other attorney’s listed on EFF’s website, and he has high hopes that they will be sufficient to dismantle USCG’s ‘pay-up-or-else’ scheme.

“My dream would be to have 10,000-20,000 people file all three documents to the lawyers and severely cripple the entire process and show them that you shouldn’t be allowed to join so many defendants,” Syfert informed TorrentFreak.

However, as is often the case when dealing with lawyers, there is a catch. When first contacting TorrentFreak, Syfert was offering the documents for sale, priced at $99.00. Although that’s still much cheaper than hiring an attorney, we voiced concerns that it looks like another attempt to make a few bucks off the lawsuits.

Luckily, these words didn’t go completely unnoticed to Syfert. “I decided to make it $9.99 instead of $99.00, probably for the next 5 days. Still cheaper than a DVD,” he told us after he slashed the price. Defendants can now buy the full package for under 10 bucks. To our best knowledge that is the cheapest solution to counter USCG’s threats thus far.

Even at the low price of $9.99, considering the target group of these cases it probably won’t take long for ‘pirated’ versions of these documents to appear on torrent and other file-sharing sites. Those tempted should keep in mind though that sharing copyrighted material without consent can sometimes lead to trouble, but it’s highly probable they know that already.

Article from: TorrentFreak.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Following their conviction in 2009, all four of the defendants in the Pirate Bay trial went on to file for an appeal which was later granted.

According to defense lawyer Per E Samuelsson, however, two of three judges set to hear the appeal could be susceptible to bias due to their membership in pro-copyright groups. Ulrika Ihrfelt was a member of the Swedish Copyright Association (SFU) and Christina Boutz a member of the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (SFIR).

Samuelsson went on to submit his complaint to the Court of Appeal, but it later ruled that the judgment of Judges Ihrfelt and Boutz is not in question. Samuelsson appealed this decision and took the question of bias to the Supreme Court, which later confirmed that an appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision would be granted.

Today the Supreme Court announced its decision, stating finally that neither Judge Ihrfelt nor Judge Boutz will be susceptible to bias when they hear the appeal.

Peter Sunde told TorrentFreak that the decision of the Supreme Court was to be expected.

“There would be a weird situation if these judges would be considered biased as the old case would be more biased than this one — and the Supreme Court can’t change the old one. Which would mean that we would already have had an unfair trial (which is against the human rights decided by the UN),” he explained.

“It also sets us in a position where these judges might have a grudge against us now, for testing their biasness, so they are probably not very happy with us. A bad starting point, for defending your own rights,” he added.

Sunde did say though that the defendants had been “quite happy” with previous judgments by the same judges, so they have a lot of hope that the final judgment will be fair and not based on the feelings and pressure from lobbyists.

So now, in theory at least, Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm and Carl Lundstrom will head to the Court of Appeal on 28 September. This date is already being claimed as politically motivated, falling as it does just after Sweden’s parliamentary elections.

The date for the appeal is not fixed in stone though, and could be changed if the plaintiffs or defendants have any objections. Early indications are that the four defendants are only available to appear before the elections, which take place 19 September.

Article from: TorrentFreak.

Popularity: 1% [?]

In April this year, all four defendants in the Pirate Bay trial were found guilty and sentenced to one year in prison and a fines of $905,000 each. Of course, the defense didn’t accept the decision, and went on to file for an appeal.

The appeal was scheduled to start last month but like most things in this case, it became surrounded in controversy.

According to defense lawyer Per E Samuelsson, two of three judges could be susceptible to bias due to their membership in pro-copyright groups. Ulrika Ihrfelt was a member of the Swedish Copyright Association (SFU) and Christina Boutz a member of the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (SFIR).

The same kind of bias accusations were earlier leveled at Judge Tomas Norstrom who presided over the original trial. The defense felt that if it could get a decision that Norstrom was biased, then the original case would have to be tried all over again, rather than going straight to appeal.

Samuelsson submitted his complaints to the Court of Appeal, but it subsequently ruled that the judgment of the two appeal judges would not be swayed by their involvement in the pro-copyright groups. Then, somewhat predictably, Samuelsson announced he would appeal this decision and take the question of bias to the Supreme Court.

Today the decision on that appeal was announced. The Supreme Court ruled that the defense will be allowed to appeal to the Supreme Court on the issue of bias in the case of the two appeal judges.

They will not, however, be able to appeal the decision in the case of Judge Tomas Norstrom, despite him being a member of the same copyright groups. Ove Nilsson of the Supreme Court admitted that it “may seem a bit strange” that Norstrom’s case can’t be appealed, but those are the rules.

The appeal of the original case is due to be heard in 2010.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Popularity: 1% [?]

On April 17th, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm, Peter Sunde and Carl Lundstrom were found guilty of ‘assisting in making copyright content available.’ The Court sentenced the defendants to one year in prison and a fine of $905,000 each.

While awaiting the appeal that was announced immediately after the verdict, The Pirate Bay continued to operate as if nothing had happened. In the background, however, both the defense and prosecution teams were preparing for the appeal which was scheduled to take place next month.

The timing of the appeal was not ideal for several of the defendants and their lawyers. They consequently tried to postpone it to a later date but this request was initially denied. However, thanks to concerns about the objectivity of some of the judges involved, the appeal has been rescheduled after all.

“I just came out of a meeting where we decided to postpone,” Appeal Court Council Ulrika Ihrfelt said this morning.

The reason for the delay are the bias accusations against two of the main judges appointed to the appeal. Both judges have ties to pro-copyright groups and last week defense lawyer Samuelsson announced that he will take the bias question to the Supreme Court. This, after his initial request failed at the Appeal Court.

Samuelsson now has to file his complaints at the Supreme Court within four weeks, and because the appeal is supposed to start close to the end of this deadline the Appeal Court decided that it was best to postpone the case.

No official date has been set for the delayed appeal but according to Ulrika Ihrfelt it will take till at least summer 2010 before the Court has time to handle the case. Until then it will be business as usual for The Pirate Bay, providing that the operators can solve all the technical problems they’ve run into during the past days.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Popularity: 1% [?]

On April 17th all four defendants in the Pirate Bay trial were found guilty and sentenced to one year in prison and a fine of $905,000 each. Despite this verdict The Pirate Bay continued to operate while the defense filed for an appeal.

The appeal is scheduled to start in November and will be handled by three judges. As with the initial trial, controversy surrounds the appointment of the judges in question. According to defense lawyer Per E Samuelsson, two of them could be susceptible to bias.

One of the judges, Ulrika Ihrfelt, has been a member of the Swedish Copyright Association (SFU). The second controversial judge, Christina Boutz, is a member of the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (SFIR).

A few weeks ago Samuelsson submitted his complaints to the Court of Appeal, but failed to get the desired result. The Court ruled that the connections of the two judges to the various pro-copyright groups will not influence their judgment.

Samuelsson did not agree with the verdict of the Appeal Court and announced that he will take the bias question to the Supreme Court, and possible delay the appeal schedule.

“There is obviously a possibility that the Supreme Court says no quickly, but it would be strange,” Samuelsson commented, adding that it will probably mean that the current trial planning will be delayed.

The defense team had previously requested the trial to be postponed because of personal reasons, but this request was denied last week. Now, with the question of bias being tested by the Supreme Court, they may get what they want after all.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Popularity: 1% [?]

On April 17th all four defendants in the Pirate Bay trial were found guilty and sentenced to one year in prison and a fine of $905,000. Despite this verdict The Pirate Bay continued to operate while the defense filed for an appeal.

A few weeks ago the Court announced that it has two weeks set aside for the Pirate Bay appeal, starting in November. The appeal will be handled by three judges, and according to defense lawyer Per E Samuelsson, two of them could be susceptible to bias.

“It is profoundly inappropriate that even in the court of appeal we have judges who are or have been members of organizations closely related to the copyright industry,” Samuelson wrote, objecting to the appointment of two of the three judges.

The appeal will be handled by judge Ulrika Ihrfelt who was previously removed from the bias investigation of Pirate Bay judge Tomas Norström, because she was linked to pro-copyright groups herself. Now she is facing the same allegations together with judge Christina Boutz.

Ihrfelt has been a member of the Swedish Copyright Association (SFU) and Boutz is a member of the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (SFIR).

It is doubtful whether the objection will have an effect. After the initial trial Pirate Bay judge Tomas Norström’s objectivity was called into doubt by the defense lawyers because of his ties to national and international pro-copyright lobby groups, but the Appeal Court later ruled that this had not influenced the verdict.

Earlier this week we reported that one of the planned lay judges in the appeal could also be disqualified from participation, since he is an employee of Swedish music outfit Spotify – a company partly owned by the plaintiffs. However, there could be more to this lay judge issue than initially meets the eye.

TorrentFreak has been informed that the man in question is a bright programmer who co-owns a streaming technology patent along with the original developer of uTorrent, so there can be little doubt that he is somewhat of a BitTorrent expert. So far the defendants haven’t objected to him but there is speculation in Sweden that IFPI could be more afraid of this lay judge than their opposition is, partly since his background is at a technical university where support for Pirate Party values is strong.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Popularity: 5% [?]