CyberLaw Blog

Archive for the ‘Copyright Policing’ Category

Film Industry Calls on Broadband ISP BT Retail UK to Block Newsgroup Website − ISPreview UK: “Film Industry Calls on Broadband ISP BT Retail UK to Block Newsgroup Website
By: MarkJ – 16 December, 2010 (12:47 PM) – Score: 199 – Fixed Line Broadband, Piracy
pirate flagThe Motion Picture Association of America (MPA, MPAA) has filed an injunction against BT Retail which, using Section 97A of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, requires the broadband ISP to block access to a Newsgroup (Usenet) indexing website called Newzbin2.

The original Newzbin website was shut down earlier this year after the MPA accused it of helping to provide and host access to ‘illegal’ (unlawful) copyright files. However Newzbin2 promptly reappeared shortly after, using both the same domain name and website content.

An MPA Spokesperson told TorrentFreak:

‘The law which the Court referred to is Section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, which provides for possible injunctions against internet intermediaries. Article 8.3 of the European Union’s Copyright Directive, of which S97A is the UK implementation, has been used successfully in Denmark to block rogue sites hosting illegal material, with further cases pending in Germany, Holland and Belgium.

In launching this case, the MPA is aiming to secure an order that will enable BT to block Internet access to the site, thus preventing the site from using the Internet to make money through infringement.’

BT, which is believed to have refused the MPA’s initial request to block Newzbin2, has confirmed the situation but chosen not to comment on the matter itself. As it stands the MPA may have a good case, supported by an earlier High Court win against the original website for copyright infringement.

Section’s 97A is also the UK version of Europe’s own Copyright Directive (8.3), which is similar to Denmark’s law where identical demands have recently been won. On the surface this might seem unfair as the website claimed to merely be indexing newsgroups, although the court case did expose some dubious activity.

It’s certainly a new move by Rights Holders, which have traditionally tried and often failed to target individual P2P file sharers. However it’s unlikely to be very effective. ISPs do not host internet content, they are ‘mere conduits’, and blocking access is little more than a placebo. It’s incredibly easy to avoid such skin-deep restrictions.”

(Via .)

MPAA Takes Legal Action To Force ISP to Block Newzbin: “Three months ago, TorrentFreak discovered that the Motion Picture Association were about to make an unprecedented move against file-sharing in the UK. Their targets were ISP BT and Usenet indexing site Newzbin.com. In discussions the MPA refused to confirm our suspicions. Yesterday, however, the MPA went to court to obtain an injunction to have BT block Newzbin in the UK.

In mid September this year, TorrentFreak received word from a previously reliable source and another anonymous one whose credentials we could not confirm, that the MPA/MPAA had the resurrected Newzbin site in their crosshairs.

The first tip said that the movie industry would try to force UK ISPs to block Newzbin in the UK. The second was more specific – that target would be one of the leading ISPs, BT.

After trying to gather more information, we contacted the MPA with what we knew and asked them if they could confirm our suspicions. At that stage, no information was forthcoming and Newzbin were also in the dark. The trail ran cold but in the last 24 hours the picture clarified somewhat.

Yesterday, the MPA went to court seeking an injunction against BT in order to force them to block Newzbin2, the resurrected version of the original Newzbin which lost a High Court battle earlier in the year.

In a statement sent to TorrentFreak, the MPA explain the process it has undertaken.

‘The law which the Court referred to is Section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, which provides for possible injunctions against internet intermediaries. Article 8.3 of the European Union’s Copyright Directive, of which S97A is the UK implementation, has been used successfully in Denmark to block rogue sites hosting illegal material, with further cases pending in Germany, Holland and Belgium.’

‘In launching this case, the MPA is aiming to secure an order that will enable BT to block Internet access to the site, thus preventing the site from using the Internet to make money through infringement,’ the MPA adds.

In order for the MPA to obtain an injunction under section 97A it is believed that they must have approached BT already with a request to block Newzbin, but had it denied.

At this stage, BT have confirmed they have received paperwork but refused to comment further.

John McVay, Chief Executive of Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television (PACT), a UK trade association representing and promoting the commercial interests of independent films and television, welcomed the news.

‘PACT supports today’s announcement. It is a shame that a legal action has to be taken, but illegal websites such as Newzbin2 pose a grave threat to our membership who do not have the resources to combat online copyright infringement.’

In a response to the news, Newzbin state the following:

‘This is just an application and not yet a decision of any court. We will be looking to instruct lawyers to fight this on behalf of our UK users. The MPA application to engage in censorship of the Internet for their own petty interests would, if granted, set a dangerous precedent in a Western democracy.

‘We don’t want to engage in a polemic but we have fully cooperated with DMCA requests from content owners and we are careful to act lawfully: ‘drive-by’ litigation such as this will cut off access to substantial legitimate content and is entirely unwarranted & disproportionate.’

Article from: TorrentFreak.

“

Committee launches a new inquiry into the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights Online – UK Parliament: “Committee launches a new inquiry into the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights Online

10 November 2010

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee issues a call for evidence on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights Online

The Committee will consider the new framework for the protection of intellectual property rights online that is being established under the Digital Economy Act, and the extent to which it is a reasonable and sufficient response to the challenges facing creative industries and individuals in digital markets. Issues the Committee will be considering include:

The implementation, practicality and likely effectiveness of the relevant measures contained in the Digital Economy Act. In particular:

* Whether the new framework has captured the right balance between supporting creative work online and the rights of subscribers and ISPs.
* Whether the notification process is fair and proportionate.
* The extent to which the associated costs might hinder the operation of the Act.
* At what point, if at all, consideration should be given to introducing the additional technical measures allowed for under the Act.

More broadly, the scope for additional activity and new approaches to ensure that original work is appropriately rewarded in the online environment, including the issues raised by the Government’s review of the intellectual property framework. In particular:

* Intellectual Property and barriers to new internet-based business models, including information access, the costs of obtaining permissions from existing rights-holders, and ‘fair use.’

The Committee is inviting written submission on the above and other matters relevant to the inquiry. A copy of the submission should be sent by e-mail to cmsev@parliament.uk and have ‘The Protection of Intellectual Property Rights Online’ in the subject line. Submissions should be received by Wednesday 5 January 2011.
Guidance on submitting written evidence

It assists the Committee if those submitting written evidence adhere to the following guidelines:

Each submission should:

* state clearly who the submission is from, i.e. whether from yourself in a personal capacity or sent on behalf of an organisation
* be about 3,000 words in length / run to no more than six sides of A4 paper;
* as far as possible comprise a single document attachment to the email;
* begin with a short summary in bullet point form;
* have numbered paragraphs;
* be in Word or Rich Text format (not PDF) with as little use of colour or logos as possible.

Please supply a postal address so a copy of the Committee’s report can be sent to you upon publication.

It would be helpful, for Data Protection purposes, if individuals submitting written evidence would send their contact details separately in a covering email in a block of text laid out vertically. You should also be aware that there may be circumstances in which the House of Commons will be required to communicate information to third parties on request, in order to comply with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Though there is a strong preference for emailed submissions, those without access to a computer should send a hard copy to:

Committee Assistant
Culture, Media and Sport Committee
Committee Office
House of Commons
7 Millbank London
SW1P 3JA

A guide for written submissions to Select Committees may be found on the parliamentary website.

Please also note that:

* Committees make public much of the evidence they receive during inquiries. If you do not wish your submission to be published, you must clearly say so. If you wish to include private or confidential information in your submission to the Committee, please contact the Clerk of the Committee to discuss this.
* Material already published elsewhere should not form the basis of a submission, but may be referred to within a proposed submission, in which case a hard copy of the published work should be included.
* Evidence submitted must be kept confidential until published by the Committee, unless publication by the person or organisation submitting it is specifically authorised.
* Once submitted, evidence is the property of the Committee. The Committee normally, though not always, chooses to make public the written evidence it receives, by publishing it on the Internet (where it will be searchable), by printing it or by making it available through the Parliamentary Archives. If there is any information you believe to be sensitive you should highlight it and explain what harm you believe would result from its disclosure. The Committee will take this into account in deciding whether to publish or further disclose the evidence.
* Committees do not normally investigate individual cases of complaint or allegations of maladministration.
* Once submitted, no public use should be made of any submission prepared specifically for the Committee unless you have first obtained permission from the Clerk of the Committee.

For up-to-date information on progress of the inquiry visit the Culture, Media and Sport Committtee’s inqury pages”

(Via .)

7 Bit Torrent Piracy Suits Target 5,469: “In one of the largest swoops targeting bit torrent piracy, numerous suits were filed Friday against 5,469 suspected of poaching porn off the Internet.”

(Via XBIZ.com | News & Articles.)

3 More Adult Companies Sue 1,100 Bit Torrent Users: “1,100 John Does were targeted in three separate suits waged by CP Productions Inc., First Time Videos and Future Blue Inc.”

(Via XBIZ.com | News & Articles.)

Your Quick Reference Guide to Current US BitTorrent Lawsuits: “If the dizzying array of movie producers, lawsuits, and law firms has your head spinning, don’t worry you’re not alone. We’ve put together a chart with all kinds of great info that will help you find information quick. Need to know what jurisdiction the Hurt Locker lawsuit is taking place in? What about the name of the Judge overseeing the Debbie Does Dallas litigation? It’s all right here, and hopefully will provide some good, quick insight into the nearly 20,000 John Does accused of copyright infringement.”

(Via Slyck.com File-Sharing News And Information.)

Names Will be Named in Debbie Does Dallas Lawsuits: “For those with spouses, mates, girlfriends or boyfriends, explaining a copyright infringement lawsuit is not an easy matter. If you’re busted because you uploaded The Hurt Locker, this isn’t the end of the world – just about anyone can understand that. If you’re busted for uploading Debbie Does Dallas, well it wont be the most pleasant conversation, but most couples will survive. If you’re caught sharing Kings of New York – well we can only sympathize with the poor bloke who has to convince his mate that a substantial demographic of heterosexuals help fuel this multi-billion dollar industry.”

(Via Slyck.com File-Sharing News And Information.)

At Least 40 John Does Strike Back Against the USCG: “Within the last few days, over 40 motions to quash have been filed by John Does accused of sharing ‘The Hurt Locker’ and ‘The Steam Experiment’. Other than Time Warner’s motion to quash, this move represents one of the largest counter-moves against the USCG (US Copyright Group).”

(Via Slyck.com File-Sharing News And Information.)

Hustler Targets 635 BitTorrent Users: “Just when you thought 20,000+ BitTorrent lawsuits wasn’t enough, 635 more are piled on. In a new round of lawsuits, LFP Internet Group (originally Larry Flynt Publications) filed their copyright complaint against the unnamed defendants for sharing the adult film ‘Barely Legal School Girls #6′. The complaint was filed in federal district court in Dallas Texas by Evan Stone, the same lawyer working on the Lucas Entertainment lawsuits.”

(Via Slyck.com File-Sharing News And Information.)

German Porn Producer Files 670 New BitTorrent Lawsuits: “There’s a secret war against alleged BitTorrent infringers going on that’s beginning to compare in scope with the USCG lawsuits. This pursuit, however, doesn’t focus on independent or artsy fartsy movies – these lawsuits are focused on adult movies allegedly shared via the BitTorrent protocol. Filed in US District Court in Dallas, 670 John Doe lawsuits were filed by Evan Stone on behalf of Mick Haig Productions, who own the copyright to the adult German film Der Gute Onkel.”

(Via Slyck.com File-Sharing News And Information.)