When negotiations are underway with the United States for your country to enter the WTO, it pays to talk tough on intellectual property issues.

For Andrew and Natalia Lopukhovs, the former administrators of the now defunct Interfilm BitTorrent site, the timing of this year’s talks involving Russia is far from ideal.

The Moscow couple have just been charged for their role in running the site and the subsequent unlawful distribution of a sample 30 movies including Hollywood blockbusters Resident Evil 3, 28 Weeks Later and Shrek 3.

According to an announcement by Deputy Prosecutor General Viktor Grin, the Lopukhovs stand accused of violating the rights of several local and U.S. film companies including Twentieth Century Fox, Paramount, Warner Bros., Disney and Universal.

Keeping up the tradition of only dealing with telephone number-sized amounts when referring to claimed piracy losses, the studios say that the pair cost them 38 billion rubles – a staggering $1.23 billion.

The operation against the couple goes back several years. Following complaints from movie companies and the involvement of anti-piracy group/MPA founder member RAPO, an investigation was initiated and ran between April 2007 and September 2008.

According to a source close to RAPO, their breakthrough in the case came when foreign sources furnished the anti-piracy outfit with a complete copy of the Interfilm website.

“This was not just saved pages, but also the files that stored all the data administration, including the IP-addresses of everyone who ever came to the site,” said the source. “With this information, investigators traced the Lopukhovs.”

The Lopukhovs, who used a range of aliases including Ripper, Shturman, Nadezhda and Piratka, are said to have maintained a relationship with a pirate in Germany called Sergei, known by his online alias Apple. Between them they are said to have uploaded movies to Interfilm and another site, Puzkarapuz.ru.

But by May 2009 it was all over. The Lopukhovs were raided at their Moscow home by the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs on claims that Interfilm was a major source of cammed movies. The site, they added, also had arrangements to supply piracy groups outside the country with the latest releases.

Interfilm was hosted at Dutch ISP LeaseWeb but was subsequently shut down. It is said to continue under new ownership at Bithouse.org. Puzkarapuz.org appears to be fully operational.

Confirming their indictments, Deputy Prosecutor General Viktor Grin said the Lopukhovs are accused of committing crimes under Part 3 of Article 146 of the Criminal Code. While the charges carry a fine of only 500,000 rubles (around $16,200), the pair could be sentenced to a maximum of 6 years in jail. A trial date has not yet been set.

Source: Married BitTorrent Admins Charged in Billion Dollar Piracy Case

Popularity: unranked [?]

Following a High Court battle earlier this year, Justice Arnold sided with the MPA and ordered ISP BT to block Usenet indexing site Newzbin2.

The case was brought against BT by Twentieth Century Fox and five other major Hollywood film studios who had demanded that Newzbin2 should be stopped from providing links to unauthorized content.

Justice Arnold stated that BT had “actual knowledge” that people using its service were infringing copyright, and that users and operators of Newzbin2 infringe the copyrights of the studios.

Today, BT and the MPA are back in court to work out the final stage of this precedent-setting web-blocking case, but there will be a surprise last-minute addition to the proceedings. Following an earlier appeal from Newzbin2, a BT user has stepped forward and is bravely preparing to take on the MPA.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, Mr White of TeamRDogs, the team behind Newzbin2, has confirmed that the individual has intervened in the case with an aim to prevent the site being blocked. His application will be heard today along with the blocking order.

“Already the MPA are trying to intimidate him by sending him a bill for $10,000 in costs,” Mr White told us. “They are trying to intimidate him by telling him he will be bankrupted if he loses!”

“We think that it’s typical of the MPA to say ‘noone from the site objected’ and then try to bury them in huge legal bills when they do,” he added. “We are providing him with moral support and we will be trying to encourage people to chip in for his legal costs if he loses, and we will help him out too.”

TorrentFreak has learned that the individual, who is both a user of Newzbin2 and BT, is attempting to intervene to prevent a full block of the site and make the MPA specifically identify which URLs should be blacklisted instead.

It is felt that both BT and the MPA have failed to correctly inform the court of the legal content to be found on Usenet and as such is under the impression none exists. Selective URL blacklisting will allow the legal content to continue as usual.

The ruling against Newzbin2 marks the first time that a site in the UK has been ordered to be blocked on copyright infringement grounds. More on this today when news from the hearing breaks.

Source: Newzbin2 User “Bullied” By Hollywood After High Court Blocking Challenge

Popularity: 1% [?]

Earlier this year, five member companies of the MPAA filed a lawsuit against the Hotfile file-hosting service and ever since the parties have been battling in court.

Last month we reported that the movie studios had requested a substantial amount of information from the file-hosting service, including IP addresses of uploaders and downloaders, and the company’s source code.

Hotfile on their turn, has recently requested information on the anti-piracy strategies of the Hollywood movie studios and the third-party companies they work with. The Florida based file-hosting service says it needs this information in order to mount a proper defense and has subpoenaed Disney, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal, Columbia and Warner, as well as five anti-piracy vendors.

Among other things, Hotfile wants to know how the movie studios find copyrighted material online, what films they give priority and when and where they look for infringing copies.

The MPAA studios, however, do not want to give up this information and have asked the court for a protective order. They argue that disclosing their anti-piracy strategies and protocols could have disastrous consequences, as it would make ‘pirates’ even smarter than they already are.

“Defendants have demanded all documents showing how Plaintiffs and their vendors locate infringing material online. In essence, Defendants are like the fox asking for the combination to the lock on the hen-house door,” the studios explain to the U.S. District Court of Southern Florida.

The request for a protective order is explained in a lengthy document which is accompanied by supporting letters from the anti-piracy chiefs of the five Hollywood studios. The general message is that their anti-piracy strategies should remain secret to prevent an avalanche of piracy.

“Plaintiffs are engaged in a continuous cat-and-mouse game with persons engaged in the unauthorized exploitation of Plaintiffs’ works online. These infringers are often highly sophisticated, and routinely restructure their services or make changes to their modus operandi to evade or decrease the effectiveness of the studios’ anti piracy methods,” the MPAA members write.

To dramatize their point the studios draw an analogy between copyright infringement and drug trafficking.

“In many ways, this is no different than the prejudice to law enforcement if they were compelled to disclose to drug traffickers where law enforcement agents were conducting their stakeouts, or their points of interdiction, or the confidential informants they were using, or the details of the technology they used to detect smugglers’ routes into the United States.”

The same drug analogy is brought up again later to emphasize how severe the consequences could be should Hotfile be given access to information on the studio’s anti-piracy strategies.

“Continuing the drug trafficking analogy, clearly law enforcement efforts would be severely compromised if criminals knew the time windows in which law enforcement intended to step up investigative activities, what particular drugs they would be prioritizing for enforcement, which suspected dealers police were declining to arrest in order to avoid compromising ongoing investigations, and what levels of possession would trigger enforcement.”

The MPAA members want the U.S. District Court to issue a protective order and prevent Hotfile from obtaining any anti-piracy information from the studios directly, or from any of the five anti-piracy outfits (DtecNet, BayTSP, Peer Media, OpSec Security and MiMTiD) they work with.

The movie studios are only willing to send Hotfile copies of the DMCA notices they previously sent to the file-hosting service.

The U.S. District Court will review the request of the MPAA studios and a decision is expected to follow in the near future. Meanwhile, everyone interested in both piracy and anti-piracy strategies across the world will be rubbing their hands in anticipation of the forthcoming revelations, should there be any.

Memorandum in support of the motion.

Source: MPAA Afraid To Disclose ‘Secret’ Anti-Piracy Strategies

Popularity: 1% [?]

For Disney, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal, Columbia and Warner, their battle with the Hotfile cyberlocker service is developing into a costly and complicated affair.

The MPAA, who would love a decisive victory against a cyberlocker service under their belt, probably selected Hotfile because of its relative lack of might when compared to market leaders RapidShare and MegaUpload. The company also has a track record of settling lawsuits rather than fighting them. The outcome in the case, whichever way it goes, will have serious implications for others in the same field in the United States.

At this stage there are no indications Hotfile will roll over in this case, but as pages and pages of legal papers are filed and responded to, it is becoming increasingly clear that the MPAA is determined to play hardball.

In a filing from Hotfile dated June 17th, the company bemoans the tactics employed by the MPAA, describing their requests for information as “over-reaching” and tantamount to “murder by litigation.”

So what data does the MPAA want from Hotfile? In a single word – everything.

“In five short demands for documents and two related interrogatories, Plaintiffs seek all data referring to all files hosted by Hotfile, all data about Hotfile’s users, all data about Hotfile’s business partners [aka affiliates], every line of source code ever written, and virtually every conceivable piece of financial data available regarding Hotfile or its business partners or its individual founders,” Hotfile’s legal time write.

Nevertheless, it appears that up to a point Hotfile is prepared to comply with the requests of the MPAA. However, as the tables below show, the company is trying to protect the identities of users and affiliates as much as it can.

The MPAA’s requests for disclosure go beyond user data. The Hollywood outfit is demanding that Hotfile hands over every version of the site’s source code that has ever existed.

Hotfile is currently resisting that request, describing its code as a trade secret which took two people more than 1,000 hours to create. Hotfile’s software gives it a competitive advantage, its legal team argues, and it would prove catastrophic if it fell into the wrong hands.

The case is becoming increasingly complex and is already developing into a bloody legal brawl. Will Hotfile continue to resist the temptation to settle in the face of “murderous litigation”, or will it concede defeat in the face of overwhelming opposition and financial resources?

Hotfile uploaders, downloaders and affiliates will certainly be hoping for the former.

Source: Hotfile Battles MPAA Over Private User Data Disclosure

Popularity: unranked [?]

“Plaintiffs’ (the Studios) Complaint alleges that Hotfile, a web-hosting service, and Mr Titov in his capacity as the ‘guiding spirit’ of Hotfile, are liable for direct and indirect copyright infringement,” begins Hotfile in its recently filed motion to dismiss an MPAA-initiated lawsuit.

“Though long on hyperbole, the Studios’ factual allegations fall far short of the legal mark. They fail to state any claims for copyright infringement upon which relief can be granted and should accordingly be dismissed,” adds the 22-page document.

As previously reported, having apparently overlooked powerful market leaders such as RapidShare and MegaUpload, earlier this year Disney, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal, Columbia and Warner filed a lawsuit against Hotfile, making the Florida-based company the reluctant guinea pig for testing the MPAA’s fledgling anti-cyberlocker legal strategies.

“In less than two years, Hotfile has become one of the 100 most trafficked sites in the world,” said the MPAA when announcing its lawsuit against the company. “That is a direct result of the massive digital theft that Hotfile promotes.”

The MPAA went on to state that Hotfile’s business model relies on the company encouraging its users to upload “illegal copies of motion pictures and TV shows to its servers”, something Hotfile denies.

As speculated earlier by HR reporter Eriq Gardner, Hotfile was probably carefully chosen as a target, not least because it uses the United States for its operational base but because, notably, it has chosen to settle rather than fight earlier lawsuits. This time, however, Hotfile does not appear to be backing down.

In its motion to dismiss dated March 31st, Hotfile denies the studios’ first claim of direct infringement. The company says that since the studios’ allegations are based around Hotfile allegedly facilitating the infringements of their users, this “could only support a claim – if any exists – for secondary infringement.”

On the issue of secondary infringement, Hotfile says the studios’ claim is deficient.

“The Studios do not allege the requisite clear expression or affirmative steps showing that Hotfile has the specific intent to promote infringement,” the company states.

‘Clear expression’ in this instance is a reference to existing case law involving three other file-sharing type services after they were previously deemed to have encouraged or approved of infringement.

In Columbia Pictures v Fung (MPAA v Isohunt), Hotfile quote site admin Gary Fung as saying “they accuse us for [sic] thieves, and they r [sic] right.” In Arista Records v Usenet.com – “Usenet is full of Music and Movies so get your pirate on!” and other more general comments from Arista Records v Lime Group and MGM Studios v Grokster. Hotfile say no such claims have been directed at them.

In response to the studios’ claim that Hotfile is guilty of contributory infringement, the company points firmly back in time to 1984′s Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., aka the Betamax case, again stopping off at 2005′s MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd on the way.

Claims that Hotfile had knowledge of infringement on its systems “effectively rehashes the argument that they lost in the Supreme Court [in the Sony case] in an attempt to stop technological advances in copying equipment.” Furthermore, the 2005 Grokster case only reaffirmed the legality of products that have “substantial non-infringing users”, say Hotfile.

While noting that it is fully DMCA compliant (and that the studios use its notice and takedown services), Hotfile goes on to refute the claims of vicarious liability on the basis that the studios failed to show that the file-hoster had the “practical ability” to “supervise or police infringement” among the millions of files that it hosts.

Interestingly, in contrast to previous cases involving both Grokster, isoHunt and LimeWire (who all had on-site ‘search box’ facilities, a fact used against them by the plaintiffs), in the studios’ case against Hotfile the lack of a search box is used to support a claim of inducement.

“Hotfile does not organize, categorize or otherwise participate in user selection of files to host. Hotfile provides the same basic service as the hundreds, if not thousands, of other bona fide web hosting services that are critical and necessary to enable the full potential of the Internet,” the company states.

“Realizing that the uninterrupted line of active inducement cases all involved sites with built in search capability, the Studios try to twist the absence of a search box into ‘concealment’. Thus, according to the Studios, web hosts are damned if they allow search (as ‘active inducers’) and are damned (as ‘concealers’) if they don’t.”

Everyone involved in a US-based online hosting business will be watching this case unfold with interest. The outcome will shape their future operations and even has the potential to alter the file-sharing landscape.

TorrentFreak

Popularity: 1% [?]

The Chilling Effects web archive was founded in 2001 as a response to the usually secretive practice of sending so-called ‘takedown notices’ to have content removed from the web. This, according to the activists involved, was having a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech.

In a show of openness, big companies such as Google, Yahoo, Twitter and Digg began sending DMCA takedown notices they received to Chilling Effects. In 2010 the clearing house received more than 12,000 such cease-and-desist notices which in turn contained thousands of links to content to be removed. At times this archive makes fascinating reading, as highlighted today by occasional TorrentFreak contributor SearchFreak.

The URL http://chillingeffects.org/dmca512c/notice.cgi?NoticeID=31773 shows a DMCA notice sent by Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation to Google which contains a list of URLs which allegedly link to the movie Avatar. Fox demanded that Google should take them all down from its index, which it appears to have done.

However, if one enters this URL into a Google search, the only results listed are where other pages refer to this URL. The actual page with this URL is nowhere to be found. Indeed, as can be seen from the screenshot below, Google has removed the result due to a DMCA takedown complaint.

Fortunately we can see what this complaint was about and who sent it by, ironically, going to ChillingEffects. The DMCA complaint in question was sent by Fox to Google and contains dozens of links its anti-piracy division has culled from the web, allegedly linking to their movie Avatar.

However, deep into the complaint Fox has demanded that Google take down links to two pages on Chilling Effects (44) (46

So, let’s have a little recap since this is becoming like an episode from Soap.

Chilling Effects is setup to stop the ‘chilling effects’ of Internet censorship. Google sees this as a good thing and sends takedown requests it receives to be added to the database.

Fox sends takedown requests to Google for pages which the company says contain links to material it holds the copyright to. Those pages include those on Chilling Effects which show which links Fox wants taken down.

Google delists the Chilling Effects pages from its search engine, thus completing the circle and defeating the very reason Chilling Effects was set up for in the first place.

Fox has repeated this somewhat ridiculous ‘error’ several times (

70

) (

72

) (

74

) (

76

) but they are not on their own. It seems that the UFC have also been trying to have ChillingEffects notices removed (

78

) (

80

) (

82

) (

84

) (

86) but currently they remain listed by Google.

While the Fox takedowns happened a while ago, those sent by UFC are just a few weeks old. Let’s hope that when receiving these requests in future Google simply throws them in the trash, where they belong.

TorrentFreak

Popularity: unranked [?]

The Chilling Effects web archive was founded in 2001 as a response to the usually secretive practice of sending so-called ‘takedown notices’ to have content removed from the web. This, according to the activists involved, was having a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech.

In a show of openness, big companies such as Google, Yahoo, Twitter and Digg began sending DMCA takedown notices they received to Chilling Effects. In 2010 the clearing house received more than 12,000 such cease-and-desist notices which in turn contained thousands of links to content to be removed. At times this archive makes fascinating reading, as highlighted today by occasional TorrentFreak contributor SearchFreak.

The URL http://chillingeffects.org/dmca512c/notice.cgi?NoticeID=31773 shows a DMCA notice sent by Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation to Google which contains a list of URLs which allegedly link to the movie Avatar. Fox demanded that Google should take them all down from its index, which it appears to have done.

However, if one enters this URL into a Google search, the only results listed are where other pages refer to this URL. The actual page with this URL is nowhere to be found. Indeed, as can be seen from the screenshot below, Google has removed the result due to a DMCA takedown complaint.

Fortunately we can see what this complaint was about and who sent it by, ironically, going to ChillingEffects. The DMCA complaint in question was sent by Fox to Google and contains dozens of links its anti-piracy division has culled from the web, allegedly linking to their movie Avatar.

However, deep into the complaint Fox has demanded that Google take down links to two pages on Chilling Effects (44) (46

So, let’s have a little recap since this is becoming like an episode from Soap.

Chilling Effects is setup to stop the ‘chilling effects’ of Internet censorship. Google sees this as a good thing and sends takedown requests it receives to be added to the database.

Fox sends takedown requests to Google for pages which the company says contain links to material it holds the copyright to. Those pages include those on Chilling Effects which show which links Fox wants taken down.

Google delists the Chilling Effects pages from its search engine, thus completing the circle and defeating the very reason Chilling Effects was set up for in the first place.

Fox has repeated this somewhat ridiculous ‘error’ several times (

70

) (

72

) (

74

) (

76

) but they are not on their own. It seems that the UFC have also been trying to have ChillingEffects notices removed (

78

) (

80

) (

82

) (

84

) (

86) but currently they remain listed by Google.

While the Fox takedowns happened a while ago, those sent by UFC are just a few weeks old. Let’s hope that when receiving these requests in future Google simply throws them in the trash, where they belong.

TorrentFreak

Popularity: unranked [?]

DMCA takedown notices are sent in large numbers to dozens of organizations on the Internet every month. The ChillingEffects clearing house has been receiving copies of these from some of the Internet‘s biggest players including Google, Yahoo, Digg and more recently Twitter. It will come as no surprise that the music and movie industries are some of the biggest complainers, but there are also some unexpected entrants.

Thanks to the folks maintaining the ChillingEffects database, issues surrounding many DMCA takedown requests can be properly researched in what can otherwise be a black hole of copyright complaints.

Earlier this year, the homepage of BitTorrent meta search engine BTJunkie suddenly disappeared from Google searches, but since the search giant submits the DMCA takedown requests it receives to ChillingEffects, we were able to discover at least some background to the complaint.

But this was just one URL in a single complaint out of the many thousands sent to ChillingEffects by the likes of Google, Yahoo, Digg and Twitter in the last 12 months.

In total, the clearing house received copies of more than 12,000 cease and desist notices, some containing a single URL and some (such as those relating to The Pirate Bay) containing hundreds. So who made the biggest noise with DMCA takedown notices in 2010?

It will come as no surprise that according to ChillingEffects stats, the international music industry, represented by IFPI, issued the most DMCA takedown notices to submitters during the last 12 months, 1272 in total. This may not sound like a huge number, but many of them contain lists of URLs which take a considerable time to simply scroll through.

In second place one might expect to find other representatives from the entertainment industry, but this position is taken with 303 complaints by Clube do Hardware, the largest site in South America to publish tutorials, articles and news on computer hardware.

Twentieth Century Fox secures the third spot with 299 cease and desists. Magnolia Pictures, a holding of the Mark Cuban owned 2929 Entertainment, takes fourth spot with 257 complaints. Porn aside, no further movie companies make the top 20.

Brazil’s Associação Anti Pirataria de Cinema e Musica, the anti-piracy group which caused so much trouble for popular fansubbing sites such as Legendas.TV, also makes a significant appearance in the ChillingEffects chart. APCM, which represents the interests of companies such as Universal, Warner, SonyBMG, Disney, Paramount, and Fox, was hacked in 2009 but made its comeback to take 5th position.

Operating in the adult entertainment market, RemoveYourContent came in 6th with 221 DMCA takedowns. With claims of a 99.3% success rate for removal of infringing content, the company has made enemies even within its own community, as demonstrated by various ‘hate‘ sites and critics. In 2009, RemoveYourContent was even blamed for having The Pirate Bay’s homepage delisted by Google.

The RIAA has to settle for a lowly 7th place with 203 DMCA takedowns. Sony/Epic/Estate of Michael Jackson slide in at 11th spot, followed by Stones Throw Records at 12th and Chappell & Co at 13th. There are no more music companies listed in the top 20.

Folkert Knieper, a producer of recipe photographs, is one of the more unusual entries at 9th position with 158 takedowns followed at 17th by Deckers Outdoor Corporation, the rightsholder for pictures of UGG boots.

Adult video company Vivid Entertainment Group sits at 18th position with 82 DMCA takedown requests.

Interestingly, some of the biggest copyright litigators of 2010, such as the United States Copyright Group and ACS:Law, appear nowhere in the top 20 list which perhaps suggests that having content removed is not their biggest concern, but generating profit from its existence is.

So which industry makes the most noise overall when it comes to DMCA complaints?

“While the mix changes over time, the most frequent senders of DMCA takedown notices remain the music industry, whose institutional members have sent a combined total averaging roughly 5 takedowns a day,” says ChillingEffects’ Wendy Seltzer.

The full list, which also lists famous copyright ‘agents’ such as the Web Sheriff, can be found here.

Article from: TorrentFreak.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Described online as a struggling screenwriter who sells flowers to make ends meet, P.J. McIlvaine is now facing the biggest struggle of her life. After creating a free online library of Hollywood movie scripts to assist other screenwriters, she incurred the wrath of Twentieth Century Fox. Without any previous contact, the movie giant sent private investigators to P.J’s home to gather information and has now sued for a mind boggling $12 million.

On a reading papers just filed in the New York Eastern District Court, it’s clear that Twentieth Century Fox is out to make an example of anyone who makes available any of their copyright material on the Internet, whether it be a movie or the words uttered in them.

In their complaint against Patricia McIlvaine (also known as P.J. McIlvaine) and Does 1-10, the Hollywood giant says it is seeking damages and injunctive relief for copyright infringement and contributory copyright infringement.

The studio claims that P.J “uploaded and made available to others via the Internet a script of Deadpool, the copyright to which is owned by Fox, and which is a script for a project still in development.”

P.J is further accused of uploading and making available “roughly 100 movie and television scripts” during 2009 and 2010, some of them relating to relatively old films such as Aliens, Edward Scissorhands and Wall Street.

The actual court papers list 79 movie scripts, only one of which is unreleased. Fox want $150,000 in statutory damages for each and every one.

Does 1-10 refers to the individuals who allegedly supplied P.J. with the scripts, although it is claimed that P.J only reposts scripts already available on the Internet. Indeed, a quick search for a handful of the scripts showed them all to be available quickly from multiple sources.

Fox states that P.J’s actions “harm the fans who do not want their enjoyment of a movie or television show to be spoiled by knowing the story ahead of actually being able to watch it.”

Perhaps those people, if they don’t want their enjoyment curtailed, should simply not spend hours seeking out and reading scripts. A simple but effective solution for unreleased movies perhaps, but one likely to fail miserable when applied to a movie such as Aliens, which has been out for 26 years already.

Nevertheless, the movie Deadpool is rather more fresh and is not due for release until 2012 and it appears that Fox has been actively trying to get its script removed from the Internet. A writer at mypdfscripts says that the studio got in touch with his site recently after they published a review of the script, a script which Fox described as “stolen property.”

While we appreciate your interest in the Film and your enjoyment of the script, the Film is a confidential project in development. Your purported review provides important qualitative details about character, plot, setting and mood, thereby violating Fox’s rights in and to the copyrights to the screenplay.

As you are likely aware, copyright law protects an author’s right of first publication. Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 554-55 (1985). Fox therefore demands that you immediately remove and not re-publish your “review,” in whole or part.

In its case against P.J, Fox says that the company took action to have the Deadpool script removed from various websites (believed to include the Mediafire file-hosting service) last month, but complains that P.J uploaded it again. However, there is no mention in the lawsuit that Fox issued P.J with a DMCA takedown request or contacted her in any way.

According to a posting, P.J is facing a huge struggle.

“PJ doesn’t have the kind of cash needed to hire an attorney. Like I said, days she works a telephone line selling flowers to make ends meet and nights she writes — fighting to bridge that artist-who-does-art vs. artist-who-gets-paid-for-art gap,” notes a posting on the Celluloid Blonde blog.

“In between she is caring for an elderly relative suffering from dementia. In between that she is caring for an infant. She is going to need help.”

Soft target? It certainly sounds like it. $12 million damages? Simply obscene.

People who can afford it are being asked to make donations via PayPal to pjscriptcooperative@gmail.com, so that P.J can at least fight her corner with the help of representation.

Article from: TorrentFreak.

Popularity: 7% [?]

Six months ago Aussie ISP iiNet celebrated following its legal victory against the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft. Now the pair are back in Federal Court for the appeal, where AFACT hopes to show that iiNet acted illegally when it refused to take action against customers who file-shared movies and TV shows using BitTorrent.

February this year saw Aussie ISP iiNet celebrating after it successfully defended legal action brought by Hollywood anti-piracy outfit AFACT.

Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Disney Enterprises, Inc. and the Seven Network took iiNet to court in the hope that a judge would find the ISP responsible for copyright infringements carried out by its customers.

The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft lost the case but didn’t give up. They said there was a “fundamental error” in Judge Cowdroy’s original ruling – that AFACT had sued the wrong person and should’ve gone after actual infringers – and earlier today the pair faced each other in Federal Court for the appeal.

From early reports coming out of the Court, nothing much appears to have changed.

AFACT continues to insist that iiNet authorized its customers to illegally download movies by simply not stopping them from doing so. ‘Authorized’ is the key word here. AFACT have chosen not to go after the BitTorrent users referred to in the case – the so-called ‘primary’ copyright infringers. Going after these individuals is “undesirable” it insists. Instead they want the Court to rule that iiNet ‘authorized’ their infringements, which would make the ISP liable for their actions.

Representing AFACT, David Catterns told the panel of three Federal Court judges that despite being provided with huge numbers of IP addresses and times of copyright infringements carried out by their customers – data which iiNet chief Michael Malone labeled “compelling evidence” – the ISP did nothing to stop further illicit activity.

In his opening salvo, Catterns put forward the case the of one iiNet customer in particular. Referred to in court as ‘RC-08′, the user had allegedly seeded 40 copyright works during 2008 and 2009. Catterns claimed that at some point ‘RC-08′ had exceeding his monthly traffic limit and iiNet had advised him to upgrade his package along with the suggestion that he could “get more of the stuff you love”.

This contact iiNet had with their customer was a point at which the ISP could’ve acted to prevent infringement, he argued.

Catterns went on to state that while iiNet takes action to deal with the menace of spam, the ISP did nothing to block or otherwise tackle file-sharers on its network. He suggested that iiNet could have taken a broad range of actions such as sending out letters, throttling customers’ connections, right through to suspending accounts.

At this very early stage it seems that AFACT are simply restating points they made in the first hearing, points which almost totally failed to convince Judge Cowdroy to rule in their favor. It is difficult to see what they can say in order to change the direction of the original decision but one thing is almost certain.

“Neither the original case nor this latest appeal will stop piracy,” said iiNet chief Michael Malone earlier. “Even if in the unlikely event they won the appeal.”

Article from: TorrentFreak.

Popularity: 1% [?]