[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View]
Thursday, August 13th, 2015
| Time | Event |
| 7:27a | Indian Porn Block Spiked Interest in VPN Services
We have seen examples of this in the past when courts ordered popular torrent sites such as The Pirate Bay and KickassTorrents to be blocked. Last week, the Internet witnessed one of the broadest website blockades in history. With a single order the Indian Government blocked millions of people from accessing popular porn sites. The authorities argued that the sites threaten the morality and decency of Indians but following a public revolt the Government lifted the ban after just a few days. Since the measures affected millions of Internet users we decided to take a look at the effects the blockade had on interest in circumvention tools such as VPNs and proxies. With help from Google trends, we can show that it was quite significant. As soon as the blocks became active searches for “VPN” spiked in India, as shown in the graph below.  Similarly, Indian searches for “proxy,” referring to proxy sites that allow users to bypass ISPs blockades, went up as well. Based on these two search trends it is safe to say that even if the Indian Government had decided to keep the porn ban intact, it’s effectiveness would be rather limited.  The response to India’s censorship efforts are another shining example of how Internet users find ways to bypass access restrictions in the Internet. Whether it’s porn or torrents, people usually find a way. To quote John Gilmore once again: “The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.” Proof of the ineffectiveness of Pirate Bay blockades was previously highlighted by several Dutch and UK Internet providers. Similarly, an Italian study found that local blocking efforts moved traffic to other pirate sites. Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and the best VPN services. |
| 1:29p | Adult Movie Outfit is Most Litigious Copyright Plaintiff in U.S.
From around 2003 the practice was led by the RIAA but after five years targeting tens of thousands of people (a loss-making exercise focused on sending an ‘educational’ message), the music industry decided to back off. Soon after, however, a new group of plaintiffs would hit the scene, arguably more cynical than the labels had ever been. So-called ‘copyright trolls’ have been on the rise in the United States since 2008 but really took off in 2011/2012 and there has been no let up since. Porn companies have been the most aggressive by a long way, a fact confirmed by a new report just published by legal analytics firm Lex Machina. Spanning all copyright litigation since 2009, the report dedicates a section to the activities of trolls and the outcomes of almost 6,000 file-sharing related cases. For those who follow file-sharing cases closely, it comes as little surprise to read that one company in particular leads the way. Out of more than 6,050 cases filed since January 2009, adult movie company turned copyright troll Malibu Media leads the way with a staggering 4,332. That total not only makes the company the most litigious in the file-sharing space, but also the most litigious copyright plaintiff in the United States, period. Malibu Media’s excesses in this area are further underlined when comparing them to other companies engaged in similar activity. The company set up to pursue downloaders of the movie Dallas Buyers Club sits in second place with a relatively measly 274 cases, fifteen times fewer in volume than Malibu. The remaining places are heavily occupied by adult movie copyright trolls interspersed with the likes of Manny Film and Voltage Pictures.  Perhaps of most interest is how these thousands of cases are concluded. In their threatening letters to alleged file-sharers, all of the above warn of court cases and massive damages if an arrangement isn’t reached. However, according to the report only 137 cases went to court in the period, with 126 concluded via default judgment, 10 via consent judgment and just a single case settled via full trial. Overall, it’s estimated that 90% of all file-sharing cases are concluded with some kind of settlement. That’s compared to a 64% settlement rate evident in other copyright cases. Given the volume of cases filed it’s no surprise that Malibu Media are out in front with both cases in court (66) and total damages received ($3.05m). However, the people behind the animated movie Zambezia are more efficient, with more than $330K culled from just three cases.  The majority of damages awarded come from default judgments ($4m) with consent judgments accounting for just $0.6m. Awards from judges total a relatively meager $100,000. Also of interest are the locations where most copyright troll cases are being filed. “File sharing cases are concentrated most highly in the Northern District of Illinois (936), followed by the District of Colorado (601) and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (580),” the report notes. In recent times the District of New Jersey has become the district of choice, setting a record of 139 cases filed in the first quarter of 2015. Interestingly these locations can provide an indicator of the kind of damages a file-sharer can expect if he or she fails to appear in court to mount a defense. “Among the top 20 busiest districts awarding statutory damages for consent or default judgments, the Southern District of Indiana stands out for having the highest median award ($51,800),” the report notes. In second place sits the Western District of Michigan ($38,300) followed by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Northern District of Indiana (both Statistically, cases in the District of Oregon prove less expensive for defendants. After handling eight cases, the Court awarded an average of less than $1,000 to the plaintiffs. With more and more cases being filed every single week, the copyright troll phenomenon is showing no signs of letting up in the United States. It is clearly a profitable exercise for many involved, Malibu Media in particular, to the point where it’s now considered a revenue stream in its own right. Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and the best VPN services. |
| 6:37p | CNN & CBC Sued For Pirating 31 Second YouTube Video
New York resident Alfonzo Cutaia used the program last year when he sensed he had a hit video on his hands, but allegedly some news organizations didn’t play by the rules and now things have become messy. Things began in 2014 when winter storm ‘Knife‘ buried parts of New York and surrounding areas under several feet of snow. On November 18, Cutaia was watching the storm coming over Lake Erie from his Buffalo office window when he decided to record events on his mobile phone. Recognizing the potential for interest in his video, Cutaia uploaded his 32 second clip to YouTube. He gave it the title “Buffalo Lake Effect” and opted to generate revenue via YouTube’s monetization program. Cutaia selected “Standard YouTube License” and watched the hits roll in. The recording did very well indeed. By the end of day one Cutaia’s video had been viewed more than 513,000 times. On day two things blew up with an additional 2.3 million hits and soon after the New York resident was receiving requests from news outlets – CBS, ABC, CNN, NBC, Reuters and AP – to use his footage. But according to a lawsuit filed this week by Cutaia in a New York court, around November 18 Canada’s CBC aired the video online without permission, with a CBC logo as an overlay. After complaining to CBC about continued unauthorized use, last month Cutaia was told by CBC that the company had obtained the video from CNN on a 10-day license. However, Cutaia claims that the video was used by CBC and its partners for many months, having been supplied to them by CNN who also did not have a license. In his complaint, Cutaia seeks injunctions against both CBC and CNN to stop further unlawful use of his video. He also accuses the news outlets of “intentional and willful” copyright infringement and seeks appropriate damages. Interestingly, the lawsuit also claims that both CBC and CNN violated the DMCA when the companies ‘liberated’ it from the YouTube system and offered it for viewing elsewhere. “In order to infringe the Storm Video, CBC [and CNN] circumvented Cutaia’s technological measures limiting access to the Storm Video, without authorization, in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(a),” the lawsuit reads. “By its reproduction and alteration to the Storm Video, CBC [and CNN] intentionally removed and/or altered the copyright management information of the Storm Video, without authorization, in violation of U.S.C. § 1202(b)(1)” CBC and CNN are also accused of distributing the video despite knowing that the copyright management information had been removed. In closing, Cutaia seeks permanent injunctions against CBC and CNN, accuses them of varying degrees of copyright infringement, while demanding a jury trial to determine damages. In the meantime “Buffalo Lake Effect” continues to perform well on YouTube. By July 2015 the video had been viewed more than 3.68m times. Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and the best VPN services. |
Opponents of website blocking often argue that it’s ineffective, as people have many options to circumvent censorship. 
Ever since the rise of peer-to-peer file-sharing more than 15 years ago, the practice has become closely connected to copyright lawsuits. Initially sites and services became entertainment industry targets but in time Joe Public became the focus of legal action.
While millions of users upload videos to YouTube every day without expecting any reward, it’s possible for popular content to generate plenty of revenue through YouTube’s account monetization program.| << Previous Day |
2015/08/13 [Calendar] |
Next Day >> |