[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View]
Friday, August 14th, 2015
| Time | Event |
| 7:47a | Dallas Buyers Club Ruling Devastates Copyright Trolling Down Under
As six Australian ISPs – iiNet, Internode, Dodo, Amnet, Adam Internet and Wideband Networks – stood by ready to furnish the information, the Federal Court told DBC it wanted to see copies of the letters the company would be sending to alleged pirates before releasing the data. In June it became evident that DBC were seeking to interrogate Internet account holders over the phone, even going as far as to demand details of their salaries. DBC still did not reveal how much money they intended to demand from alleged infringers but in a ruling handed down this morning from the Federal Court, Justice Nye Perram details what happened next. Early July, DBC provided a written submission to the court detailing four claims it intended to make against alleged pirates. (a) A claim for the cost of an actual purchase of the movie Dallas Buyers Club. (b) A claim relating to each alleged infringer’s uploading activities. DBC said it would seek to recover a one-off license fee from each individual that had uploaded parts of the movie to other BitTorrent users. “It is not trespassing on DBC’s legitimate confidentiality concerns to say that the sum sought by DBC in relation to this head of damages was substantial,” Justice Perram writes. (c) A claim for damages depending on how many copies of OTHER copyrighted works had been downloaded by each alleged infringer. (d) A claim for damages based on the amount of money it has cost DBC to obtain the personal details of each alleged infringer. Unsurprisingly, Justice Perram finds the claim set out in (a) to be both reasonable and with “certain biblical charm”. Equally, the judge feels that since DBC has spent considerable amounts tracking alleged infringers down and bringing legal proceedings, the amounts set out in (d) are also fair. However, when it comes to the claims outlined in (b), Justice Perram has much less sympathy with the movie studio. “The idea that any court would assess DBC’s damages on the basis that BitTorrent users who were going to share the Film over the BitTorrent network would have avoided infringement by approaching DBC to negotiate a distribution arrangement in return for a license fee is so surreal as not to be taken seriously,” the judge writes. “If such a claim were made in a proceeding for copyright infringement in this Court I am satisfied that it would be dismissed summarily without trial….as a case having no reasonable prospects of success.” In respect of (c) – trying to calculate damages based on OTHER infringements – the judge dismisses that too. Essentially the judge found that DBC can claim for the price of the film and claim for a proportion of the amount spent on tracking down an alleged infringer, but if he is to allow the release of subscriber information, DBC are not allowed to ask for anything more. However, that in itself raises a problem. Since DBC has no presence in Australia, the Court has no ability to punish the company for contempt if it fails to follow Justice Perram’s instructions. So, in order to make it financially unviable for DBC to go rogue, the Judge now requires DBC to pay a AUS$600,000 bond before any subscriber information is released. While today’s ruling doesn’t preclude DBC from going ahead with ‘deterrent’ letters to alleged pirates with a small fee attached to cover their costs, it does turn their juicy cash cow into a giant pig. Few outside the company will be disappointed by that. Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services. |
| 4:30p | Hosting Company Wants to Wipe 1,103 Megaupload Servers
More than three-and-a-half years have since passed and it still remains uncertain if former users will ever be able to retrieve their files. A reporter who used Megaupload to store work-related data did take legal steps to secure his files. However, despite six requests asking the court to find a solution for the return of his data, there is still no progress. Hosting provider Carpathia previously estimated that it cost them $9,000 a day to keep the hardware in storage. Nonetheless, the court urged the company to preserve the evidence and the hardware is still gathering dust at a Virginia warehouse. If it’s up to Carpathia’s new parent company this will soon change. The company submitted a motion at a Virginia federal court this week asking for permission to destroy all data on the servers. Carpathia Hosting was acquired by QTS which now owns all assets of the hosting company. This includes the Megaupload servers. According to QTS the company shouldn’t be required to preserve the servers, not least because they have not been used in the ongoing lawsuit in recent years. “As the successor-in-interest to Carpathia, QTS now requests judicial relief from the physical and financial burden of storing and maintaining the 1,103 computer servers at issue,” QTS’ lawyers write. “As the servers have not been used for the purposes of any litigation since the filing of Carpathia’s Motion for Protective Order on March 20, 2012, QTS seeks an Order from the Court allowing for disposition of the servers and data,” they add. After the servers were moved to a storage facility the costs of maintaining them has been reduced to $5,760 per month, but QTS sees no reason why it should continue to pay this. Carpathia Hosting submitted a similar request to delete Megaupload data in 2012 but this was turned down by the court. Kim Dotcom is not happy with the renewed request. Two years ago hosting company Leaseweb wiped hundreds of Megaupload servers so he believes that the remaining ones must be preserved at all costs. “Obviously we will try to keep the data safe. Not only because it contains important evidence but also because we want to return the digital property to millions of Megaupload users,” Dotcom tells TF “The Department of Justice has allowed the deletion of all Megaupload servers in Europe. We will try to stop them from doing the same in the United States,” he adds. This view is shared by Megaupload’s lead global defense counsel Ira Rothken who plans to submit an opposition brief. According to Rothken the U.S. has to preserve the Megaupload data, as evidence and to allow former users to access their files. “The Department of Justice is supposed to protect consumers. They are the department of justice for everyone not just Hollywood,” Rothken notes. One option could be to let one of the other parties store the data, which has been suggested before. Soon after the raid Megaupload and Carpathia even came to an agreement to hand over the servers, but the Government blocked the plan in court. The fate of Megaupload’s data is now in the hands of District Court Judge Liam O’Grady who will rule on the motion when all parties have had a chance to have their say. Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services. |
Back in April the company behind the movie Dallas Buyers Club (DBC) 
When Megaupload | << Previous Day |
2015/08/14 [Calendar] |
Next Day >> |