Author: Andy

Last month news broke that a brand new flood of copyright infringement threats were about to land with UK-based Internet users.

“A company called Golden Eye International, which owns rights to several copyrighted films, has claimed that a number of Sky Broadband customers engaged in unlawful file sharing of some of its films,” ISP Sky told its subscribers in a warning letter.

“It’s likely that Golden Eye International will contact you directly and may ask you to pay them compensation.”

It’s taken several weeks but as promised Sky subscribers are now receiving letters from Golden Eye (GEIL) and partner firm Ben Dover Productions (BDP).

“It is with regret that we are writing this letter to you. However, GEIL and BDP are very concerned at the illicit distribution of films over the Internet,” the letter begins.

GEIL then explains that it is not the content owner but “the licensee authorized to enforce breach of copyright” on the adult movie titles referenced in the letters. To protect our sources we aren’t publishing the movie titles but to get an idea of the embarrassment some people are feeling right now, a full list of the movies can be found in GEIL’s license arrangement with BDP, available here (PDF).

As usual GEIL points out that it has hired a “forensic computer analyst” to track alleged infringers. However, in more than one instance it appears that GEIL is accusing people of downloading and sharing content in the summer of 2014. Expecting people to remember what happened so long ago could be a tall order.

“On 26 August 2015 Master Bowles, sitting in the High Court, ordered that SKY UK LTD give disclosure of your name and address, for the purpose of enabling us to send you this letter and if necessary bring legal proceedings against you,” the letter continues.

“In accordance with that Order, SKY UK identified you as the subscriber noted in their systems as on their network associated with the IP address on the date and at the time in question.”

As noted this past weekend ISPs can make mistakes too, but nevertheless GEIL’s letter clearly states that the account holder is assumed to be both the infringer and the user of the relevant computer at the date and time in question.

The company cannot possibly know this for certain since any number of people can have access to a household’s Internet access. Interestingly, they immediately admit that too.

Of course, if people are unaware of any infringement taking place they cannot reasonably be expected to furnish GEIL with that information. And while GEIL say they “may” ask the court to conclude that the account holder was the user of a an unspecified computer on a date 18 months ago, the court is also free to reject that assertion.

It’s also worth noting that GEIL have never engaged in a contested case in court, despite threatening to do so many times previously. What the company actually wants is a confession and hard cash.

“Once your response to this letter is received, GEIL and BDP will be prepared, if we believe that you have behaved unlawfully, to give you the opportunity to avoid legal action by proposing a settlement out of court,” the letter notes.

As previously instructed by the court GEIL is not allowed to ask for a specific amount in its initial letter, but recipients of second letters from the company will probably receive demands of up to £600 to £700 to put the matter to rest.

However, GEIL also tries to lure letter recipients in by suggesting that accidental infringement or that carried out by a child might result in a lower settlement amount being offered.

GEIL concludes by asking for a detailed confession or for the account holder to point the finger at members of their family or friends who have had access to their network.

“Please state whether you admit that you have downloaded the Work and/or made it available for download by others and if so the extent to which you have done so and whether you are prepared in principle to enter into a settlement of the kind outlined above,” GEIL adds.

“If you deny that you have downloaded the Work or made it available for download by others, please explain the basis upon which you deny it, and provide the information that we have requested above about other users of the computer.”

TorrentFreak has spoken to several letter recipients in the past few days. Only one said he was thinking of settling with GEIL.

People looking for legal advice can contact Southampton-based solicitor Michael Coyle who is handling these cases for a fraction of the amount requested by GEIL.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

In 2012, as Megaupload’s servers were being closed down in the U.S. and Dotcom’s New Zealand mansion was being raided by armed police, the entrepreneur’s offices in Hong Kong were being turned over by a reported 100 customs officers.

Under instruction from the U.S. government, HK$330 million (US$42.57m) in assets were seized and have remained restrained in Hong Kong ever since.

In April 2014, Megaupload launched legal action against the Hong Kong government, applying for the restraining order to be set aside while accusing the secretary for justice of procedural failings when the application for seizure was made.

In December 2014 came a breakthrough when a judge in the High Court set aside the restraining order. However, while an almost immediately lock was reapplied to Dotcom’s assets, a revised order granted Dotcom’s legal team the right to contest the asset freeze.

As part of that ongoing process, Dotcom’s lawyers were back in court this week asking for the release of large amounts of funds, the equivalent of US$2.3m to cover legal costs plus US$52,000 per month for his living expenses.

In keeping with argument presented at his recent extradition hearing in New Zealand, Dotcom’s legal team told the Hong Kong court that by restraining his funds and expecting him to mount a defense their client’s hands “were tied behind his back.”

SCMP reports that while Dotcom had a “world-class” legal team in the New Zealand hearing, he had no money left to pay them so had to use “junior lawyers.” Money had now run out in New Zealand, so the funds in Hong Kong were the next best option.

But just like last year when Hong Kong authorities were accused by Dotcom’s team of not making a “full disclosure” of the facts, this week the authorities sought to turn the tables.

Representing the government, prosecutor Wayne Walsh SC claimed Dotcom did the same after starting two new businesses and running transactions “worth hundreds of millions of dollars” through Hong Kong bank accounts. Dotcom was also criticized for not disclosing details of his living costs

Once a staunch supporter of Hong Kong, Dotcom now finds himself at the mercy of the country’s judges who to date have been much less flexible than their counterparts in New Zealand when it comes to releasing funds.

Back in May a New Zealand court released millions in funds to pay for Dotcom’s legal bills, plus $128K per month in living expenses.

A sizable $60K of that money was earmarked to pay the rent on Dotcom’s mansion, which has been reported to cost around $750,000 per annum under a lease signed in February 2013.

However, the terms of the agreement meant that Dotcom would ultimately have to buy the property or move out. It was reported in November that the entrepreneur would be moving to a waterfront penthouse apartment on “fashionable” Princes Wharf instead.

“It’s significantly more humble than what I am used to but that’s okay,” Dotcom said last month. “I am also not living with a partner any more, we have reduced our staff numbers significantly and this place feels a little bit big now.”

The hearing in Hong Kong continues.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Considering the amount of publicity a wrongful DMCA notice can generate these days, it’s no surprise that when a gift of a story presents itself, people are happy to jump on board.

Unfortunately, however, some stories are more complex than they first appear and when that complexity is borne out of a deliberate desire to mislead, chaos is bound to ensue.

On November 25 a tantalizing piece appeared in Electronic Beats detailing how in an apparent desire to protect copyright, Soundcloud had finally gone too far. A follow-up piece from YourEDM put meat on the bones.

“Just when you thought Soundcloud couldn’t get any worse, they strike again harder than ever. Now reaching an all time low, Soundcloud has removed a track that is nothing but 4 minutes of pure silence due to ‘Copyright Infringement’ claims,” it declared.

The piece was uploaded to an account operated by D.J. Detweiler and consisted of a remix (if one could ever be possible) of the John Cage ‘track’ 4’33”, a famous performance consisting of nothing but silence.

“That’s right, a song that has literally no sound was flagged for removal. How? Because Soundcloud is lazy and takes shortcuts to flag and remove content,” the YourEDM piece continued.

“Instead of crawling the uploaded content for copyright material, which takes a decent amount of CPU power, Soundcloud has resorted into cutting that process out entirely and beginning to flag content based on JUST the track title.”

As recipes for outrage go, this was an absolute doozy and no wonder it was picked up by several publications in the days that followed. However, as is now becoming painfully obvious, the whole thing was a giant stunt. A statement from Soundcloud obtained by Engadget revealed the cringe-worthy truth.

“The upload referenced in the screenshot was not a track of silence and was taken down because it included Justin Bieber’s What Do You Mean without the rightsholder’s permission,” the company said.

“The respective user uploaded the track under the title “4’33”,” which is also the name of John Cage’s famous piece of silence but it was not, in fact, silence.”

So what were D.J. Detweiler’s aims? Well, trolling the press appears to be one. In a biting follow-up amid several retweets of regurgitated articles on the same topic, D.J. Detweiler posted the following image.

"I AM A JOURNALIST FOR AN INTERNET MAGAZINE" STARTER PACK pic.twitter.com/4nBuhZ3RsV

— dj detweiler (@DeeJayDetweiler) November 30, 2015

Another aim appears to be recreating the work of Cage to prove a point. Although Cage’s track 4’33” was supposed to be silent, ‘performers’ are expected to be present but not play. Unless done so in a vacuum, the resulting ‘performance’ therefore includes ambient noise. Equally, it appears that D.J. Detweiler’s ‘silence’ is now intentionally causing noise around the Internet too.

“We are making a remix of the original performance of John Cage. The only different thing is that we are making it on the internet in 2015, instead of doing it in a space like a theater, like John Cage did. The whole environment around what we’re doing is the performance because everybody’s reacting.”

But trolling and frivolity aside, it does appear that DJ Detweiler have a copyright message to deliver.

“When John Cage wrote that piece, one of the main reasons was because he was trying to ask, who owns the silence? Who has the copyright for the silence?” they ask. “The laws surrounding copyright at this point seem highly outdated and need some sort of reformation, and we just want to push that.”

While the group have certainly achieved their aims, it’s perhaps a bit of a shame that’s been achieved at the expense of publications who mainly appeared to have sympathy with often overreaching copyright law.

That being said, when one looks at DJ Detweiler’s Facebook and homepages (epilepsy warning!), the value of doing more research really starts to pay off.

DJ Detweiler are taking part in a panel discussion about “branding, hype and trends” this Thursday at the 3hd Festival in Berlin. He’s described as an individual there but at this point, who knows?

In the meantime enjoy his/their remix of Sandstorm, Smack My Bitch Up, and my personal favorite, DJ Hazard’s Mr Happy.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

In a growing number of countries around Europe, courts have been overwhelmingly willing to order Internet service providers to block pirate sites. In Sweden, spiritual home of The Pirate Bay, copyright holders hoped to achieve the same.

However, a case brought in 2014 by Universal Music, Sony Music, Warner Music, Nordisk Film and the Swedish Film Industry against local ISP Bredbandsbolaget (Broadband Company) crashed and burned on Friday.

After a month of deliberations a unanimous Stockholm District Court found that Swedish legislation meets the requirements of the EU Infosoc directive. The actions of Bredbandsbolaget do not constitute its participation in infringements carried out by some of its ‘pirating’ subscribers, the Court found.

Considering the momentum around Europe towards blocking the decision in Sweden came as a surprise, not least to the copyright holders behind the case. Per Strömbäck of FTVS, the umbrella group behind the action, believes that illegal sites came out the winners on Friday.

“The ruling is a serious failing for the Swedish judicial system that is already falling behind. Swedish film and music creators deserve better,” Strömbäck says.

However, the movie, TV and record companies behind the action have no intention of giving up and as predicted will take their case to appeal.

“The Court has examined the legislation whose precise purpose is to give rights owners the opportunity to have Internet service providers stop illegal services from reaching Swedish internet users,” says Henrik Bengtsson, legal counsel for the plaintiffs in the case.

“Similar legislation already exists in the rest of Scandinavia as well as in much of Europe. We will appeal.”

The efforts to hold Bredbandsbolaget as accomplices to its subscribers’ ‘crimes’ means that the legal action against the ISP was the first of its kind in the country.

If it had succeeded, other ISPs in Sweden would have been subjected to similar conditions and demands to block other sites would’ve quickly followed. However, as the position stands today Bredbandsbolaget feels its stance as a mere conduit of information has been vindicated.

“We see it as positive that the district court did not consider that Internet operators are accomplices in crimes committed over the Internet. This is important for freedom of expression and the Swedish model of a free and open Internet,” says Anna Byström, Chief Legal Officer at Bredbandsbolaget parent company Telenor.

“We believe that the Court of Appeal will rule in our favor, and hope that this will put an end to this matter that could otherwise lead to ISPs needing to block more sites in the future.”

The plaintiffs will file their case with the Svea Court of Appeal before December 18, 2015.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Earlier this month TF broke the news that Sky Broadband in the UK were sending letters out to some of their customers, warning them they’re about to be accused of downloading and sharing movies without permission.

When they arrive the threats will come from Golden Eye International (GEIL), the company behind the ‘Ben Dover’ porn brand that has already targeted hundreds of people with allegations of Internet piracy.

“It’s likely that Golden Eye International will contact you directly and may ask you to pay them compensation,” the ISP warned.

In fact, GEIL will definitely ask for money, largely based on their insistence that the evidence they hold is absolutely irrefutable. It’s the same tune they’ve been singing for years now, without ever venturing to back up their claims in court. Sadly, other legal professionals are happy to sing along with them.

“Don’t do anything illegal and you won’t get a letter,” intellectual property specialist Iain Connor told The Guardian last week.

“Golden Eye will only have gotten details of people that they can prove downloaded content and so whether the ‘invoice’ demand is reasonable will depend on how much they downloaded that infringed copyright material.”

Quite aside from the fact that none of these cases are about downloading copyrighted material (they’re about uploading), one has to presume that Connor isn’t personally familiar with details of these cases otherwise he would’ve declared that interest. Secondly, he is absolutely wrong.

Companies like GEIL sometimes get it wrong, the anti-piracy trackers they use get things wrong, and ISPs get things wrong too. An IP address is NOT a person but innocent parties have to go to huge lengths to prove that. IT worker Harri Salminen did just that and this week finally managed to publicly clear his family’s name.

It started two years ago when his wife – the Internet account payer – was accused by an anti-piracy outfit (unconnected to GEIL) of pirating on a massive scale.

“They claimed that thousands of music tracks had been illegally distributed from our Internet connection,” Salminen told local media.

“The letter came addressed to my wife and she became very anxious, since she didn’t understand what this was all about. According to the letter, the matter was going to the court and we were advised to make contact to agree on compensation.”

Sound familiar? Read on.

The Salminen family has two children so took time to ensure they hadn’t uploaded anything illegally. Harri Salminen, who works in the IT industry, established that they had not, so began to conduct his own investigation. Faced with similar “irrefutable” IP address-based evidence to that presented in all of these ‘troll’ cases, what could’ve possibly gone wrong?

Attached to the letter of claim was a page from Salminen’s ISP which detailed the name of his wife, the IP address from where the piracy took place, and a date of infringement. This kind of attachment is common in such cases and allows trolls to imply that their evidence is somehow endorsed by their target’s ISP.

Then Salminen struck gold. On the day that the alleged infringement took place the IT worker was operating from home while logged into his company’s computer systems. Knowing that his company keeps logs of the IP addresses accessing the system, Salminen knew he could prove which IP address he’d been using on the day.

“I looked into my employer’s system logs for IP-addresses over several weeks and I was able to show that our home connection’s IP address at the time of the alleged act was quite different from the IP address mentioned in the letter,” he explained.

So what caused Salminen’s household to be wrongly identified? Well, showing how things can go wrong at any point, it appears that there was some kind of screw-up between the anti-piracy company and Salminen’s ISP.

Instead of identifying the people who had the IP address at the time of the actual offense, the ISP looked up the people using the address when the inquiry came in.

“The person under employment of the ISP inputs a date, time, and IP-address to the system based on a court order,” anti-piracy group TTVK now explains.

“And of course, when a human is doing something, there is always a possibility for an error. But even one error is too much.”

Saliminen says that it was only his expertise in IT that saved him from having to battle it out in court, even though his family was entirely innocent. Sadly, those about to be accused by Golden Eye probably won’t have access to similar resources.

“We have only written to those account holders for whom we have evidence of copyright infringement,” Golden Eye’s Julian Becker said confidently last week.

Trouble is, Golden Eye only has an IP address and the name of the account holder. They have no evidence that person is the actual infringer, even presuming there hasn’t been a screw-up like the one detailed above.

“We have written to account holders accusing them of copyright infringement, even though it’s entirely possible they personally did nothing wrong and shouldn’t have to pay us a penny,” is perhaps what he should’ve said.

But that’s not only way too frank but a sure-fire way of punching a huge hole in GEIL’s bottom line. And for a troll like GEIL, that would be a disaster.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

For several years Hollywood studios and international recording labels have engaged in legal action to have ‘pirate’ sites blocked in the UK.

The injunction applications were all filed at the High Court with the earliest example dating back to the 2012 blocking of The Pirate Bay at the hands of the BPI (British Recorded Music Industry).

Since then more than 20 injunctions have been handed down targeting a range of content but it took until May 2015 for the book publishing sector to land its first victory.

In an injunction application targeting major ISPs including BT, Sky, Virgin Media, O2, EE and TalkTalk, the Publishers Association successfully argued that their rights were being infringed by a number of e-book download sites.

Shortly after, Avaxhome, Ebookee, Freebookspot, Freshwap, Libgen, Bookfi and Bookre were all blocked at the ISP level, with Internet users in the UK confronted with a message similar to the one below.

Of course, blocking a handful of sites was never likely to achieve long-term results, especially with fresh domains, proxies, mirrors, and other workarounds being deployed on a regular basis. No surprise then that the Publishers Association has recently applied to have yet more URLs blocked by ISPs. (full list below)

All appear to relate in some way to sites that were blocked in the earlier court order, including Avaxhome, eBookee, FreeBookSpot and Library Genesis. This means that the Publishers Association won’t have needed to start a fresh process and will have simply added these URLs to the existing injunction.

This latest expansion is only the latest in a long line of applications made by a wide range of entertainment industry groups.

Earlier this month the UK’s blocklist silently expanded with the addition of around 170 sites, an effort that was preceded in October with the blocking of dozens of new domains, including those relating to Popcorn Time.

Updated Publishers Association blocklist

avxhome.se.prx2.unblocksit.es
avxhome.unblocked.la

ebookee.co
ebookee.unblocked.la
ebookooabc.org
ebookooawe.org
www.pdfbooksplanet.ru

freebookspot.unblocked.la
freebookspot.unblockme.co
freebookspot.unblockme.net

libgen.unblocked.la
libgen.unblockme.co
libgen.unblockme.net
libgen.unblock.al

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Acting on a lead from the entertainment industry, in January 2012 the U.S. Government shut down Megaupload.

To date, much of their efforts have been focused on extraditing Kim Dotcom and his former colleagues from New Zealand to the United States but earlier this year it became apparent that they’d already snared an important piece of the puzzle.

Operating under key mega figure Matthias Ortmann, Andrus Nomm was a Megaupload programmer who reportedly earned a little over $3200 per month.

In common with his former colleagues, Nomm was cited in the Megaupload indictment, meaning that the FBI wanted the Estonian in the United States to face criminal charges. With few funds at his disposal to put a Dotcom-like fight, Nomm flew from the Netherlands and handed himself over to U.S. authorities after three years.

In February the 36-year-old was arrested and carried through with a deal he’d promised to cut with U.S. authorities. Just days later the Department of Justice announced that Nomm had pleaded guilty to criminal copyright infringement, and he was sentenced to 366 days in prison.

Dotcom slammed the development.

“An innocent coder pleads guilty after 3 years of DOJ abuse, with no end in sight, in order to move on with his life,” Dotcom said. “I have nothing but compassion and understanding for Andrus Nomm and I hope he will soon be reunited with his son.”

This week it appears Dotcom’s wishes came true. According to NZHerald, after serving just nine months in prison, Nomm’s name appeared on a list of prisoners due to be released this week.

However, the Estonian’s release will be bitter-sweet since according to the same report Nomm’s evidence is already being used against Dotcom and as recently as his just-concluded extradition hearing.

The details will not be made public until have Judge Nevin Dawson hands down his decision but it’s believed that Nomm has stated on the record that Dotcom and his former colleagues knowingly profited from copyright infringement.

Nevertheless, Dotcom still feels that Nomm pleaded guilty to a crime he didn’t commit.

“One year in jail was his way out. I don’t blame him. I can understand why Andrus did it. But it doesn’t change the fact that he is innocent,” Dotcom told the Herald.

Underlining his point, Dotcom points to a video recorded by Nomm just three months after the raid and uploaded to YouTube after Nomm signed the plea deal.

“Andrus made it clear in his documentary interview that he had done nothing wrong,” Dotcom said.

Although three years in limbo and a year in jail will have had a considerable impact on Nomm’s life, his deal with the U.S. now means that he can get on with his life. The same cannot be said of Dotcom and his former colleagues.

Nomm plead guilty to two counts of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, charges that Dotcom and his former colleagues continue to deny. The U.S. also dropped the money laundering and racketeering charges against the Estonian – the same is unlikely to happen in Dotcom’s case. However, Nomm still has a “money judgment” of US$175m to contend with, a not inconsiderable amount that he will presumably never pay.

The conviction of Nomm is a considerable feather in the cap of U.S. authorities who indicate that Nomm has given them much more evidence than has been revealed thus far. Only time will tell how valuable that will prove.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

The Pirate Bay is blocked by dozens of ISPs around Europe but anti-piracy outfits have always hoped that one day the notorious site would be rendered inaccessible in Sweden, its country of origin.

To that end, Universal Music, Sony Music, Warner Music, Nordisk Film and the Swedish Film Industry teamed up in a lawsuit last year designed to force Swedish ISP Bredbandsbolaget (Broadband Company) to block the site.

They claimed that the ISP should be held liable for the infringements of its customers, unless it blocks Pirate Bay.

Bredbandsbolaget flat out refused to comply, stating categorically that its only role is to provide customers with Internet access while facilitating the free-flow of information. The case went to trial and was heard in the Stockholm District Court during October. After nearly a month the Court has handed down its decision and its a huge win for the ISP and, indirectly, two famous pirate sites.

In a ruling handed down just minutes ago, the Stockholm District Court completely rejected rightsholder demands that Bredbandsbolaget should block its subscribers from accessing The Pirate Bay and streaming portal Swefilmer.

The Court reports that the case was heard in light of an EU directive which notes that member states shall ensure that rightholders have the possibility to ask for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to commit copyright infringement.

The District Court says that in its opinion Swedish legislation meets the requirements of the Infosoc directive. Furthermore, the Court also considers that the actions of Bredbandsbolaget do not constitute participation in crimes in accordance with Swedish law.

“A unanimous District Court considers, therefore, that it is not in a position to authorize such a ban as the rights holders want and therefore rejects their request,” said presiding Chief Magistrate Anders Dereborg.

Of course, there are higher courts in Sweden and it is very likely that’s where this case will end up. Today’s decision can be taken to the Svea Court of Appeal no later than December 18, 2015.

In the meantime the plaintiffs in the case must pay Bredbandsbolaget’s costs, expected to exceed US$160,000.

Breaking news story, updates to follow

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

So-called ‘copyright-trolling’ is quite clearly big business as 2015 comes to a close. Often portrayed by content owners as a necessary evil designed to send a deterrent message to pirates, overall the practice is lucrative for the many companies involved.

The whole system relies on intimidating people into paying a ‘fine’ or settlement fee, often between a few hundred and a few thousand euros or dollars. The threat is to take cases to court if people don’t pay, alongside a clear suggestion that things will get more costly thereon in.

Over in Finland, Hedman Partners – a law firm acting on behalf of several movie, TV show and adult distributors – has been employing this exact tactic and after failing to get the desired number of pirates to pay, is now taking people to court.

Lawyer Joni Hatanmaa announced the first three cases against Finnish citizens last month and as previously promised, those people are now being told to expect big bills. However, according to the law firm things could get substantially worse.

Speaking with state-owned YLE, Hatanmaa now warns that his company is hoping to obtain the personal details of more than 10,000 alleged pirates in the coming year and if necessary will eventually take up to hundreds of cases to court.

The prospect of these kinds of copyright cases bogging down the legal system hasn’t been well received and already there a worries over where capacity to handle them will be found. Such cases are filed at the Market Court, a specialist venue hearing IP, competition and market law disputes, and its chief judge says a flood could prove problematic.

“If these cases become this plentiful, then how can we organize them with our existing resources? We already have an abundance of pending things here,” says Chief Judge Kimmo Mikkola.

While the Judge is right to express concern, history shows that in Europe there is less willingness to take cases to court than there is in the U.S., for example. Statutory damages in the United States mean that defendants could face bills of $150,000 for a single infringement if found guilty, an amount that serves to encourage early settlement.

In Europe the position is somewhat different, with alleged pirates more willing to take a chance on ignoring threatening letters while hoping the whole matter simply disappears. That does indeed happen in some cases, but precise and current numbers are impossible to come by. However, since ‘trolls’ keep coming back for more, the suggestion is that enough pay to keep the scheme going – and profitable.

In Finland it does appear that at least in limited numbers, Hedman Partners are prepared to take some cases to court to prove their point. However, some experts believe that it won’t be an easy ride.

Copyright specialist Herkko Hietanen of the Turre Legal law firm says that guilt will be difficult to prove since the court will require the copyright holder to show that the Internet account holder is the person liable for the infringement, since that’s who their claims are addressed to.

Judge Kimmo Mikkola agrees that identifying the precise infringer could be an issue.

“There is a problem of showing who has used the Internet connection. We can get clarity on these issues when we start to deal with them,” the Judge concludes.

That was certainly an issue for the Salminen family, who two years ago were accused of downloading and sharing thousands of songs. They’ve had an uphill struggle but have finally cleared their names after Mr Salminen, an IT expert, went all out to prove the case brought against them was false.

This week the family got the recognition they deserved when it was reported in local media that the anti-piracy group involved admitted that somewhere in the chain there had been an error and the wrong people had been accused.

“We had a lot of watertight, technical evidence backing us up that would be impossible for anyone other than someone in the IT field to gain access to,” Salminen said.

“If a letter like this would be delivered to a little old grandmother, how would she ever get this resolved?”

The truth is, people like this don’t have much of a chance. And trolls know it.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Over the past 15 years countless individuals have faced financial punishments due to online copyright infringement offenses. But what happens when a case is won by copyright holders but the alleged pirate simply cannot pay?

Answers to that question vary, but over in the Czech Republic the people at the Business Software Alliance (BSA) have come up with the most unusual solution so far to settle their case with a long-time pirate.

The case involves an individual known as Jakub F who was accused by the BSA of pirating software including Microsoft’s Windows. Over many years he uploaded links to various forums which allowed others to download content from file-hosting sites. The BSA took exception to that and tracked him down. Eventually the police ended up at Jakub’s house, confiscating his computer, DVDs and an external hard drive.

The case went to trial and in September Jakub was found guilty, with a district court handing him a three-year suspended sentence and ordering the confiscation of his equipment. But for Jakub the matter was not over yet.

Various companies involved in the lawsuit including Microsoft, HBO, Sony Music and Twentieth Century Fox estimated that Jakub had caused them around $373,000 in damages, with Microsoft alone calling for $223,000. However, it appears that the court wasn’t prepared to accept the companies’ somewhat hypothetical calculations.

Whether the companies ever intended to claw back these sums remains unclear but it now transpires that the plaintiffs and Jakub F reached agreement on what they describe as an “alternative sentence.”

Instead of paying out a small fortune to his tormentors at the BSA, Jakub F agreed to star in an anti-piracy PSA about his life as a pirate. The video, which is embedded below and titled “The Story of My Piracy”, is being promoted on mojepiratstvi.cz, a site ostensibly setup by Jakub himself, with the aim of deterring others from following in his footsteps.

“I had to start this site because for eight years I spread pirated software and then they caught me. I thought that I wasn’t doing anything wrong. I thought that it didn’t hurt the big companies. I didn’t even do it for the money, I did it for fun,” Jakub begins.

“I felt in the warez community that I meant something. I was convinced that I was too small a fish for someone to get to me. But eventually, they got me. Even for me, the investigators came to work.”

The video is a professional affair starring Jakub himself. Set to a dramatic soundtrack, Jakub talks about the fun he had on warez forums, sharing content for the pleasure of others. However, it all came crashing down when he was told that copyright holders wanted hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages, damages he could never pay.

But while Jakub appears to have kept up his side of the bargain so far, the BSA say that the 30-year-old’s fate lies with how popular the video becomes. Unless the video gets 200,000 views on YouTube, there’s a suggestion that a huge fine will become payable.

“If I promote my story and my video gets at least 200 thousand views, I will only serve the general part of my sentence,” Jakub explains.

“In the video I play myself and this is really my story. I shot the video with a professional firm. Sharing is how this started and sharing is how I would like my story to end up.”

At the time of writing Jakub’s video has more than 80,000 views so he needs 120,000 more to clear his debt. Needless to say, this is one propaganda film video he’ll be hoping doesn’t get pirated.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.