The next phase was to write to the individuals and threaten them with legal action, unless they paid several hundred pounds. Some panicked and paid up, most did not. Only a handful of these cases actually went to court and DL won them all, because the individuals didn’t defend themselves.

After masses of bad publicity peaking in a controversy over gay porn, Davenport Lyons appeared to have had enough, and withdrew from this business model to limit the damage to their brand and reputation.

In May, new kid on the block ACS:Law appeared and promptly took over where DL left off, and again, hundreds – maybe thousands – of threatening letters went out, demanding cash payment from alleged file-sharers. But this time things wouldn’t be quite so easy for the lawyers and their clients.

The scheme wasn’t new anymore and various support structures for letter recipients flourished, including forums and dedicated sites such as the excellent BeingThreatened.com. Due to the increased knowledge and awareness brought about through news articles such as those read here on TorrentFreak and on the aforementioned platforms, pay-up rates from those accused fell to as little as 15%, as it became clear that the chances of actually being taken to court were minimal.

But now, after months of being told to “put up or shut up”, it seems that ACS:Law are, if they are to be believed, about to flex their legal muscles and actually litigate against certain individuals. They need their symbolic “head on a pike” to ensure the overall pay up rates make the scheme worthwhile.

“The first batch [of] claims have been prepared and were filed at court on Friday, 4 September 2009. Service of the proceedings will be made by first class post and will be with defendants by Tuesday, 8 September 2009 at the very latest,” the company said in a statement, adding, “The second batch of defendants will be selected on Monday, 14 September 2009.”

While many recipients may have ignored previous correspondence from ACS:Law or DL, individuals receiving documents in the post today or tomorrow (presuming the threats actually come to something) are strongly advised not to ignore them, especially if they are court documents.

Failure to respond to court documents could result in a default judgment being issued in the future and this could prove very costly indeed – possibly mounting to several thousand pounds.

So what should recipients of court documents do? Firstly it would be prudent to seek legal advice – Lawdit Solicitors can offer advice and guidance since they have been assisting people against these claims for some time now, but any lawyer with a sound knowledge of copyright issues will prove invaluable.

For those individuals who maintain they are innocent, a vigorous defense can be mounted against any allegations. In the majority of cases, all ACS:Law will have as evidence is an IP address harvested by an untested system in a foreign country, and that may not be enough to prove their case.

Indeed, the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) recently told Which?, “We’re not convinced of the efficacy of the software and not confident in its ability to identify users.”

However, ACS:Law will select potential defendants very carefully and will likely focus on individuals with the weakest cases, have compromised or damaged their defense in some way, or have chosen not to respond to previous letters.

If you receive court documents in connection with an ACS:Law case during the next few days, do not panic. Please feel free to get in touch with us here at TorrentFreak in complete confidence. Your privacy will not be breached and we will point you in the right direction.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

James Monaghan from the company has recently taken part in the BERR consultation on file-sharing so has been watching this week’s developments closely. The government has set a deadline for responses to its plans (which include disconnecting alleged file-sharers from the Internet) of 29th September and, like many others, James has responded to the new statement by sending his thoughts in to the consultation. His feelings will resonate with many TorrentFreak readers. Here they are in full;

Monaghan Media Response To Latest BERR Statement

There are an estimated 7 million file-sharers (your figures) in the UK, and you want to reduce that number by 70%. 70% is 4.9 million. A fair trial is fundamental to democracy. To fairly prosecute 4.9 million citizens is an optimistic suggestion when currently Her Majesty’s Court System holds 200,000 criminal cases per year. This would suggest it is going to take 25 years to reduce file-sharing by 70%. This is only dealing with the 70% of today’s file-sharing with no regard to the expected increase of file-sharing. Research suggests that the number of file-sharers increases every day, 63% of people aged 14-24 now admit file-sharing, with 83% of those file-sharing every day.

To prosecute 4.9million people you will also need evidence. No evidence exists. Anywhere.

The ‘evidence’ championed by the failing sector of the media industry – the physical distribution sector – has been proven time and time again to be incredibly flawed. I refer here to the elderly couple who the copyright industry began legal proceedings against for downloading hardcore gay nazi pornographic film ‘Army Fuckers’ (1) among others. I also refer to the law firm Davenport-Lyons, who sent out 15,000 letters telling people to pay a small ‘fine’ (usually about £600) and they’d make a lawsuit against them (for file-sharing) go away. This is what is known as ‘extortion’.

Luckily for the consumers, and all of those of us who enjoy freedom from criminals, Davenport-Lyons were quickly picked up by BBC’s Watchdog program, and promptly disappeared.

I note though, that in today’s (25th August 2009) response, you don’t mention a fair trial. In fact you don’t mention any opportunity for those accused with this flawed and faulty evidence to defend themselves. Which rather gives the impression that there will be no opportunity for the accused to defend themselves. What you do say is this:

“…the previous proposals, whilst robust, would take an unacceptable amount of time to complete in a situation that calls for urgent action…”

So what you’ve stated, is that it is impossible for your draconian anti-file-sharing measures to be implemented fairly. Which is correct. What this means, is that this route of anti-file-sharing legislation, the ‘criminalise-7-million-of-your-citizens’ route is wholly unfeasible, impossible to implement without massive cost to the tax-payer, and impossible to implement without massive damage to the progress of the UK’s creative industries. What this does not mean is that instead of fair trials and the assumption that the accused are innocent until proven guilty, everyone should be presumed guilty until they are proven innocent. This is perverse as the accused would not then have the opportunity to be proven innocent.

In my previous contribution to this consultation, I briefly touched upon the fact that the industry has never been able to show any loss, financial or otherwise, has been caused by file-sharing. I’ve gone into a little more detail here, which shows, with numbers, evidence, and references, (rather than the usual hearsay provided by the industry) to show that there isn’t a financial loss to any of the most downloaded films this year (so far).

You’ll note that all of the top ten most downloaded films so far this year (3) are all incredible commercial successes, each making hundreds of millions of pounds. Watchmen, the most downloaded film with 16.9 million illegal downloads, still made $185,248,060. How can anyone argue that file-sharing has caused it a financial loss? Benjamin Button was the second most downloaded film so far, being downloaded 13.1 million times illegally. It made $332,860,689. A financial loss? I think not.

What we are seeing here, is the end of one type of business: the physical distribution of digital products. We are in a world where DVDs are old technology, in less than ten years Blu-ray disks will go the same way as LPs, as tape cassettes, as VHS tapes, and as DVDs. The internet however, has outlived the DVD. And it will outlive the Blu-ray disk. And it will outlive whatever format ‘succeeds’ the Blu-ray disk. The internet is here to stay. What we are seeing in the Creative Industry is a very small sector (distribution), which makes massive money from a system which is made redundant by the internet.

It is not the responsibility of the government, of the ISPs to prop up a failing business. If a business is failing, it is the responsibility of that business to look at itself, at its actions and rethink its operations in order to save itself.

It is wholly unfeasible to enforce any rule against filesharers, and impossible, literally impossible to enforce according to law.

I reiterate the statement I made in my first contribution to this consultation, the majority of my audiences watch my films over the BitTorrent system, a system so revolutionarily brilliant that it means I, an independent film-maker, can distribute a film in full High Definition to hundreds of millions of viewers with absolutely no cost incurred to me, where normally global film distribution costs several tens of millions of pounds. I think it is acceptable to say then, that my company and I are at the forefront of the industry.

As someone who uses file-sharing systems, not only to gain access to media which I never could’ve before, but also to distribute my own contributions to the UK’s Creative Industry, I am utterly shocked and appalled by the lengths to which your government will go to make my audiences, my peers and myself criminals.

This is not the end of the creative industry. I can say this with great confidence, as someone working in the industry. The industry is currently undergoing a change, a natural change, a change that it must undergo. Although this is not the end of the creative industry, it is the end of a disgusting sector of the industry which has been a parasite on the industry for the past half-century, milking it for as much money as it can, promoting false inflation of the rest of the industry only to increase its own profits.

The criminals here are not the teenagers downloading films and music, but the global corporations that extort money from artists and consumers alike, and who operate in a manner not unfamiliar with sinister global criminal networks.

It is the remit of democratically elected Government to protect the citizens, film-makers, and business-owners from the failing business model which threatens freedom, civil liberty, and creative business’ economic future.

Finally, I take this quote from your statement today:

“…As ever we would need to ensure any such measure fully complied with both UK and EU legislation…”

Disconnecting people from the internet does not fully comply with EU legislation. In fact it directly contravenes EU legislation. I am referring to amendment 138/46 which was adopted on the 6th May 2009 in response to French attempts to implement a system almost exactly the same as the one proposed here. A system which was declared unconstitutional by the French High Court. You will be aware that amendment 138/46 declared that access to the internet was a fundamental human right.

Not only do your proposals directly contravene European Law, but the certainty of wrongful sanctions being taken against citizens opens the government up to legal action. The fact that cutting off an entire household’s internet punishes everyone in that household and not just the ‘accused file-sharer’ is near-certain to breach the government’s ‘Every Child Matters’ directive where children are punished for others’ actions. The probability of cutting off the internet of those who need the internet to survive, the long-term sick, for example, or the disabled, further opens up the government to attack.

Is this the route that my government wants to pursue? Or should the government perhaps listen to its’ citizens’ outrage and stop neglecting them in favour of the power and massive wealth offered by the global corporations who’s only motivation is furthering said power and wealth?

Yours faithfully,
James Monaghan

Monaghan Media

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

The hypocritical law firm – who were recently shown to be copyright infringers themselves – partner with Swiss anti-piracy tracking company Logistep (and another company DigiProtect) in order to demand settlements of around £665. However, time and time again there have been allegations against individuals who have absolutely no idea why they are being accused of copyright infringement.

Last year, in the most prominent case of mistaken identity and when Davenport Lyons were working with porn companies, they incorrectly accused a retired 64 year-old man of sharing the hardcore movie ‘Euro Domination 5′ via BitTorrent. The man received an apology and the demands for money ended.

Eventually the actions of Davenport Lyons, Logistep and DigiProtect attracted the attention of consumer group Which? who made a complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Although that action is still ongoing, Davenport decided – at least on the surface – to withdraw from the business.

But of course, ACS:Law were waiting in the wings and they are now conducting business with Logistep in much the same fashion. Unfortunately for them, Which? is now on their case too.

In their most recent print edition, Which? published an article which casts an even darker shadow over the issue. They say they have been contacted by 20 individuals who say they have no knowledge of the games in question – Dream Pinball 3D and Two Worlds.

Which? quoted hospital ward clerk Deborah Hughes who said: “It’s distressing to receive such a letter. I’ve never heard of this game and I’ve no idea how to share it. I’ve searched my computer but it’s not there.”

Of even greater concern and embarrassment to ACS:Law are the accusations they leveled at Colin Dixon, Technology Director at a UK software developer. “My wife and I are middle aged (51 and 49) and work from home, and the computers here are owned by our employer, and are strictly controlled for pirated software – that’s my job!”

Which? also spoke with the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) about the issue. They replied: “We’re not convinced of the efficacy of the software and not confident in its ability to identify users.”

Up to now, this hasn’t worried Logistep, DigiProtect, Davenport Lyons or ACS:Law since they say in their claims letters: “We do not claim that your computer was used to commit the infringing act (although we do not exclude this possibility), nor do we claim that you downloaded our client’s work. Our claim is that your Internet connection was used to make our client’s work available via one or more P2P networks. The file may not, therefore, be on your computer.”

So, in a nutshell, they admit that the people named in their letters may not have carried out any infringement. Absolutely priceless.

Neither ACS:Law nor Davenport Lyons have ever won a contested case against a UK file-sharer, despite all their bluster. Hundreds of people are “let off” after simply digging in their heels, denying the accusations and refusing to pay.

Thanks Hickster

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Today, a few hours before France is expected to pass “HADOPI” – their three-strikes legislation – a coalition of several British “creative industries” are calling on the UK government to implement similar measures. According to a BBC report, the entertainment industry lobbyists want the government to force ISPs to disconnect repeated copyright infringers, something the government has already said it does not want to do.

The coalition’s recommendations are accompanied by some impressive statistics for which no source can be found. They argue that a massive 50% of all Internet traffic can be attributed to piracy alone, and that despite the record breaking revenues for the movie industry and the ever growing revenue from digital music sales, many jobs may be lost because of it.

Whether or not jobs or profits are at stake, the major downside to implementing a “three strikes” policy is that the current state of evidence gathering is far from accurate. The BBC consumer show Watchdog revealed how easy it is to point the finger (and pull the plug) on the wrong person. The recent accusation that an elderly couple downloaded gay porn is just one example.

The Internet Services Providers’ Association (ISPA) seems to agree and has said in a statement that the evidence used by the entertainment industries would not be “admissible as evidence in court.” On the other hand, disconnecting alleged file sharers without going though the courts is deemed unfavorable by a recent decision of the European Parliament, because it would violate the rights and freedoms of Internet users.

Nicholas Lansman, Secretary general of ISPA has a suggestion for the entertainment industry coalition though. “It is important to recognise that a major part of the solution lies in licensing reform and the availability of legal content online,” he said. Indeed, if anything, the widespread use of BitTorrent and other file-sharing networks to download infringing content is merely a sign of a failing industry. Disconnections will not improve the current business model.

Indeed, no amount of Internet user disconnections is going to solve the the piracy ‘problem’ either. If the UK government did agree to implement something like this and it led to the disconnection of say, 10,000 people there would be outcry. There would also still be another 5,990,000 people sharing files across Britain. There has to be another solution.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

The next step was to write to the individuals and threaten them with legal action, unless an amount ranging from £450 to £700 was paid. Somewhere between 40 and 60% of recipients panicked and paid up, while the rest engaged in ‘letter tennis’ with Davenport, corresponding back and forth and getting nowhere – literally – those who stood their ground have not been taken to court.

Of course, due to the weakness in their system and poor evidence gathered against alleged file-sharers, it wasn’t long before Davenport accused the wrong people of file-sharing, including pensioners erroneously accused of downloading gay porn. One of Davenport’s clients, Atari, found it all too much, and withdrew from chasing file-sharers through the company. The mountain of bad publicity continued to grow culminating in the respected consumer magazine Which? reporting Davenport Lyons to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority. Then everything went a little quiet. Until this week.

During the last few days more letters, almost identical to the ones sent out by Davenport Lyons, have been dropping onto doormats around the UK. The claims go through all the usual legal jargon but amount to the same – give us between £550 and £750 or we will take you to court.

The letters are sent out by a company called ACS Law, who can be found on the web via their website. According to the site, the partners at ACS Law are Andrew Crossley and Nicola Beale. Many specialties are listed for the pair, but copyright law is not one of them.

Some of the company’s clients are listed on the site – games publishers Reality Pump, Techland, Topware and German ‘porn-protectors’ Digiprotect – and all of them are previous (or maybe even existing) clients of Davenport Lyons. The titles being ‘protected’ by ACS Law on behalf of these companies are the exact same titles previously ‘protected’ by Davenport Lyons. One could be forgiven in thinking these companies are connected, particularly since much of ACS’s documentation sent to the public and listed on their website is ‘cut and pasted’ from Davenport Lyons documentation. They even have a Microsoft Word document entitled Notes on Evidence, which was created on a version of Word actually registered to Davenport Lyons.

During our research some interesting things came up. Andrew Crossley, a partner at ACS Law (who recently defended the Dubai ‘sex on the beach‘ case), lists his email address on most issues unconnected to these anti-piracy cases as andrew.crossley@acs-law.co.uk – note the .co.uk part in the domain.

However, ACS-Law.co.uk as listed on the Law Society website is not the website address given to anti-piracy cases – that is ACS-Law.ORG.UK - and it was registered just weeks ago. Delving into the WHOIS information for the site reveals that the domain is not registered to ACS Law, but to one Terence Tsang. This same Mr Tsang is a known cyber-squatter who has previously locked horns and lost domain disputes with Morgan Stanley and others.

Of course, we sent Andrew Crossley at ACS Law an email (to both the .co.uk and .org.uk addresses) and gave him an opportunity to respond. We asked several questions (listed in summary below) but as yet we’ve received no response. When (if) ACS Law respond, we’ll publish their answers. In the meantime, recipients of letters should not worry and certainly shouldn’t feel hurried in responding to these allegations. Good starting advice can be found here along with a discussion thread here.

1. What is your connection with Davenport Lyons?
2. Why are you servicing so many (ex?) Davenport Lyons clients?
3. Why does ACS Law have two web presences – ACS-Law.co.uk and ACS-Law.org.uk?
4. Why is ACS-Law.org.uk owned by a known cyber-squatter and not your company?
5. How many of these cases against alleged file-sharers do you intend to pursue and who is on your client list?
6. These cases got hugely messy for Davenport Lyons and it’s only a matter of time
before ACS Law accuses a pensioner or child of downloading porn, or makes other errors. Are you concerned that you, your partner and/or your company will be bought into disrepute by taking these cases on?
7. If your client’s aim is to reduce copyright infringement (rather than simply generating revenue from it), why not give us a list of all the titles you ‘protect’ and we’ll publish them, to warn people away from downloading them?
8. Around the web, the specialties of the ACS Law partners can be found, but copyright law is not listed as one of them – why is that?
9. Considering your approach to these cases is almost (if not) identical to that of Davenport Lyons, do you anticipate contact from Which? and the Solicitors Regulatory Authority in the coming months? If not, why not?

Stay tuned for updates!

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Media Protector operates in a similar way to tracking company Digiprotect, who currently work with lawyers Davenport Lyons in the UK. It connects to BitTorrent swarms, eD2k and other filesharing networks, and harvests IP addresses of those sharing copyright works without permission. Media Protector then works with lawyers to force ISPs to disclose the personal details of those allegedly sharing files, sending them letters ordering them to pay a ‘fine’ (out-of-court settlement) or face legal action.

“We are working today with a lot of international rights-holders and leading production companies — including Hustler, the world’s largest adult entertainment company — and have detected well over 200,000 copyright infringements in Germany alone,” Media Protector founder and Managing Director Rainer Strassmeir told Xbiz.

Strassmeir believes that aggressive anti-piracy enforcement is the key to embedding a type of fear in the illegal downloader. He claims it soon becomes known which content producers chase pirates, with those that do witnessing a corresponding decrease in illicit downloads. He also believes that the decrease in piracy leads to an increase in retail sales.

Anti-piracy company Digiprotect has been open about its aims – it says it helps clients “turn piracy into profit”, although the lawyers it works with in the UK deny that there is any profit motive, rather their actions are purely for anti-piracy purposes. Strassmeir isn’t embarrassed to say that he tries to generate profit from piracy either, as he states that his customers “enjoyed a new revenue stream by effectively monetizing copyright infringements.”

Last year, the evidence collected by Media Protector was called into doubt. A recipient of a 700 Euro compensation demand for unauthorized uploading was actually operating a client which was modified never to upload, thus making infringement impossible.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

When we broke the news on 18 November we noted that things would be very different this time, particularly when the frailties of the evidence gathering were exposed by the wrongful accusation of innocent parties.

It didn’t take long. On 29 November The Guardian reported that a couple in their sixties were horrified that they had been wrongfully accused of illegally sharing the gay porn movie Army Fuckers.

Many people have commented on these developments, and now it’s the turn of a sex writer. Placed by Forbes in their Web Celeb 25 and named by Wired in their Faces of Innovation 2008, Violet Blue is, amongst seemingly a million other things, sex columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle and a best seling author. She also lectures cyber-law classes at UC Berkeley and is a Geek Entertainment TV reporter.

Writing in her blog, Violet Blue headlines her article “The New Face of Porn Racketeering?” Pointing out that this isn’t just any old porn, but “a Nazi gay male hardcore flick”, she goes on:

It’s sort of like if someone came up to you on the street and said, ‘hey I think you slandered me in a way that could be really embarrassing to you if anyone found out — but if you give me a couple hundred bucks, I won’t take you to court [where you’d lose even more money].’

Having enjoyed the work of writer Roald Dahl in both written and TV form (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, James and the Giant Peach and the genius of Tales of the Unexpected), Violet’s description of how she sees this operation reminded me again of something i’d mused upon earlier.

In 1987, Playboy published a short story by Dahl, entitled The Bookseller. The story features a gentleman called William Buggage who ran a rare book shop in London with his secretary Miss Tottle. Their business model was a little unconventional. Every day the pair read the newspaper obituaries looking for the deaths of married men who had left a wife behind. Armed with this information, they would send invoices to the grieving widows demanding payment for books their husbands had supposedly ordered. The books contained European hardcore pornography and ’sexual deviance’. Rather than face the ruination and humiliation of being named in court or the press, the widows would quietly pay up.

Those familiar with Dahl’s work will know that this master story teller is famous for the ‘twists’ revealed at the end of his stories, and The Bookseller is no different. In the end, Mr Buggage and Miss Tottle were found out when they tried to get money from a widow who revealed that her husband – far from quietly titillating himself with porn – was in fact, blind.

While most people acknowledge that Davenport Lyons have made some pretty big mistakes, no-one is suggesting that they or their clients simply make things up. However, for every set of allegations they get right (around 50% admit infringement and pay up), they absolutely get some wrong. They wouldn’t have expected that their allegations of sharing Atari’s Race 07 would’ve landed on the mat of a pair of pensioners and we will see if they choose to withdraw the allegations that the other pair of pensioners shared Army Fuckers. At the moment they find themselves in the position of the blind man – in receipt of a sordid accusation against them and absolutely no way of defending themselves.

In a statement to The Guardian, Davenport Lyons said: “We allow ample opportunity for the recipient to respond, and if they have done nothing wrong they have no reason to be concerned.”

The truth is much less straightforward. No matter how people defend themselves in the face of these allegations, Davenport Lyons continually argue that they are right, and the accused is wrong. When I pointed out the Dahl story to someone involved in the cases, this was the reply, which is an adaptation of a real response to those who try to plead their innocence:

It’s a shame for Mr. Buggage and Miss Tottle they didn’t have the knowledge and expertise of messrs Davenport Lyons. They could have easily argued in that case that “it is irrelevant for the purposes of our clients evidence how the European books of pornography and sexual deviance (”the Work”) came to be acquired in your blind late husband’s name. What our client’s evidence shows is that the Work was made available from an Internet connection registered in your late blind husband’s name on a certain date and time”

But while there are certain similarities with Dahl’s story, one point appears entirely mirrored. While the widows in The Bookseller pay up to avoid appearing in the press, those wrongfully accused by Davenport Lyons are going to the press for protection. Those that don’t have age on their side don’t find the going quite so easy.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Recently their efforts to make money from alleged pirates was picked up by the mainstream press, because an elderly couple was incorrectly accused by them of pirating an Atari game, Test Drive Unlimited. It is of course a stereotype to think that people over fifty don’t play games, but with the help of consumer magazine, Which? Computing, the lawyers were forced to drop the case.

If anything, this suggests that the evidence they gather for use against alleged sharers is not as strong as it should be. In fact, this is not the first time that a case has dropped before it went to court. Apparently, the lawyers that represent the various copyright holders will only make their case when they have a sure win – that is, when the defendants fail to show up. Others who dig in their heels and refuse to pay learn that the consequences aren’t nearly as bad as the law firm would have everyone believe.

Meanwhile, thousands of UK citizens are receiving letters in which they are accused of downloading music, games or more recently, adult entertainment. In these letters, they are asked to pay a few hundred pounds, or else they are threatened with the prospect of being dragged through court, where the fine – if the law firm is to be believed – will be multiplied several times over.

There aren’t any precise figure on how many alleged pirates have paid up, but based on earlier comments from the law firm itself, it’s believed to be between 40 and 60%. It’s not unthinkable that some copyright owners are making more from this type of pirate-chasing than they do from sales of their actual products. Quite an innovative business model actually, especially since in many cases it guarantees a revenue stream for sub-standard products that otherwise simply wouldn’t sell.

But now, according to The Register, computer game manufacturer Atari has had enough, as they have canceled their collaboration with Davenport Lyons and Logistep. Exactly why is open to speculation, but it is difficult to find a single positive article about the activities of these companies, particularly when recent and rather more potentially embarrassing actions are taken into consideration. It’s not surprising that they choose to distance themselves from the operation.

In a comment to El Reg, Atari said that it will “always retain and reserve the right to protect our intellectual property from illegal copying and piracy.” An interesting comment, since cashing in on alleged piracy happens after the offense, and has nothing to do with protection. However, this statement seems more of an attempt to show that this withdrawal doesn’t indicate that Atari is going soft on piracy.

Of course, copyright holders have every right to protect their material, or even make up for the losses they claim to suffer. Whether it is the right thing to do is questionable though, especially when the tactics are as aggressive as they are in these cases.

The complete lack of transparency in respect of the evidence gathering techniques just makes matters worse, and every negative aspect is compounded when people like Simon Davies of Privacy International speak about facets of the operation in very unfavorable terms. “This is appalling, it breaches a number of fundamental human rights,” he said. “They risk bringing the law into disrepute – just because lawyers can do something it doesn’t mean that they should.”

A great example of where copyright has gone wrong has emerged recently. In a leaked contract between DigiProtect (copyright protection outfit) and Evil Angel (content producer), the copyright was actually transferred in order for DigiProtect to make it available on filesharing networks.

“LICENSOR grants DIGIPROTECT the exclusive right to make the movies listed in Appendix 1 worldwide available to the public via remote computer networks, so-called peer-2-peer and internet file sharing networks such as e-Donkey, Kazaa, Bitorrent, etc. for the duration of this agreement.”

So, DigiProtect makes the files available to cash in on the people who attempt to download the files, but not to protect their intellectual property in a way copyright law was put in place for. In fact, this has nothing to do with copyright protection, they are simply exploiting the system. Probably a good thing that Atari got out before it all falls apart.

The question now is how are the other publishers feeling now that Atari has had enough? Since they are based in the UK, the focus now falls on CodeMasters, who are still pursuing people over Colin McRae Dirt, but does the return on the project cancel out the mountains of bad PR it generates? Time will tell.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

The latest development is one that file-sharing commentators have quietly been expecting. While some 40-60% of those threatened over video game sharing in the UK appear to pay up, there are other ways of increasing this amount substantially via social leverage. Unsurprisingly, Davenport Lyons are now going down this road which is likely maximize compliance rates.

According to recipients of fresh letters this weekend, the lawyers have now expanded into movie ‘protection’ – a gay hardcore porn movie to be precise. Set on a farm in the former Czechoslovakia, Gestapo officers apparently hand out ‘forced’ punishment in ‘Army Fuckers‘, a 2006 movie originally released by Dutch porn outfit Dream Logistics BV, on the ‘Eurocreme‘ label.

Strangely, however, Dream Logistics BV aren’t the rights holder anymore, or the ones that hired Davenport Lyons. It appears the new rights holder is German anti-piracy company DigiProtect, who managed to get this High Court order for disclosure of alleged file-sharer’s identities, based on evidence provided by lesser-known anti-piracy tracking company DigiRights Solution, of Darmstadt, Germany. Indeed, DigiRights Solution GmbH appear to have no obvious Internet presence.

Davenport Lyons are demanding £500 compensation, plus the costs from the ISP for disclosing the alleged infringer’s personal details. Recipients of the letter are given 21 days to pay up and are threatened with huge court costs and damages if they don’t, which is no different to all the other threats made by Davenport on other media they ‘protect’. It is worth noting that of a claimed 25,000 threats of legal action, no more than half a dozen have gone to court and of those, none were contested, meaning that Davenport Lyons won default judgments on them all. There is no evidence to suggest that anyone has ever contested a case with many people simply refusing to pay up.

Those accused and deciding to settle are asked to sign an undertaking that they will never infringe copyright on any media owned by DigiProtect in the future, which might be easier than you think – considering the number of titles they own the rights to. As previously pointed out by P2P-Blog, DigiProtect seem to be acquiring the ‘P2P Rights’ to many titles (including those of US porn company ‘Evil Angel’) and gathering their money via P2P tracking and subsequent legal threats.

However, most worrying is the leaked contract between DigiProtect and Evil Angel, as it contains the following paragraph, which one would believe applies to these UK cases too:

To achieve the purpose outlined in clause 1, LICENSOR grants DIGIPROTECT the exclusive right to make the movies listed in Appendix 1 worldwide available to the public via remote computer networks, so-called peer-2-peer and internet file sharing networks such as e-Donkey, Kazaa, Bitorrent, etc. for the duration of this agreement

This destroys claims that these actions are for strict anti-piracy purposes, this is a clearly a money-making operation, designed from the ground-up.

Since most people will want to avoid lining the pockets of DigiProtect and friends, here is a list of titles that include those that appear to be now owned by DigiProtect and ripe for IP harvesting.

Although not DigiProtect titles, the eagle-eyed reader will notice the inclusion on this list of Dream Pinball 3D, Colin McRae Rally and Call of Juarez – all titles targeted by Davenport Lyons. According to the list, DigiProtect also owns the rights to Atari’s dire ‘Alone in the Dark 5′.

Of course, we live in a world that has become much more liberal in recent years, so the stigma attached to porn of all flavors has diminished significantly. However, the damage that will be done to a family will be considerable if someone is incorrectly accused of sharing porn that doesn’t ‘fit’ the acceptance levels in that household.

There is a firestorm coming, there can be little doubt, and a simple apology from Davenport Lyons following an incorrect accusation won’t be enough.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Titan Media advertise themselves as ‘the premier creator of all-male erotica’ (aka ‘gay porn’), and they are known to go after sites and individuals who they say are illegally using their content. Gilbert Gonzales, who regularly posted infringing files on his weblog, was one of the key players according to the company,

In April, Gonzales was served with a $1.275 million default judgment for uploading 17 films to file hosting sites, but that didn’t stop him. He continued to share the work of Titan Media and its parent company Io Group Inc., and often accompanied his uploads with the message: ‘I will never stop sharing what I have with others.’

According to a report from AVN, the court was not amused by Gonzales’ repeated and defiant offenses. Judge Marilyn Hall Patel wrote in a second order for injunctive relief that, if he continues to share infringing material, “the court shall issue a warrant for the arrest of Gilbert Michael Gonzales.”

Since the regular anti-piracy outfits (MediaDefender excluded) don’t want to be associated with companies such as Titan Media, with the CEO of BayTSP saying: “We don’t want to be known in the porn space,” they had to go after the pirates themselves. With some success it seems, as the company managed to track down the remaining 21 “John Doe’s” that were listed in last year’s complaint.

Most of the 21 others have already decided to settle for a substantial, but undisclosed amount. Among these men were architects, restaurant owners and several married men, according to Io Group vice president Keith Webb, as if that should be some sort of surprise.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Here at TorrentFreak we’re getting very tired at the frequency we have to keep reporting on the Swiss anti-piracy company, Logistep. The way they operate is simple: they use a modified Shareaza client to enter BitTorrent swarms to collect data, which they sell to lawyers who use the information to discover the identity of alleged file-sharers, who they then threaten with legal action which can be made to go away – for a fee. A simple “Pay Up or Else”, no different to the recent case where they were working with CodeMasters. As we said before, Logistep’s system is unlicensed and unapproved by any official independent or government organization. Put simply, anyone could gather this data from the internet and claim that it’s accurate.

Logistep are now working with a new ally – lawyers ‘kuw’ in Germany who according to a Gulli report are representing certain producers in the adult industry to track and ‘fine’ BitTorrent users they accuse of sharing their material. After further research, ‘kuw’ appear to be emboldened after they worked with Logistep at the start of 2007 in tracking down hundreds of people who allegedly shared the game ‘Gothic3‘ and forcing many of them to pay up.

Those unlucky enough to find themselves in the crosshairs of kuw and Logistep will receive a letter. In it will be the usual legal speak, with lots of implied things and veiled threats designed to frighten. The bottom line is a demand for cash to make this issue disappear – 250 euros to be precise. 135 euros goes to ‘KUW’ for lawyers costs while 115 euros goes to the copyright owner of the movie/video clip in question by way of damages. KUW lawyers are claiming that they only target people who have already downloaded at least 30% of the movie.

Most, if not all people receiving these type of letters in previous UK cases have had no further action taken against them when they refuse to pay up.

In what appears to be a quickening shift in the porn industry to take legal action against sharers, Jon B., Vice President at porn company Red Light District (who hides his real ID because his family doesn’t know what he does) told the LA Times: “What’s happening in the industry is an unacceptable amount of theft.”

While claiming that 35% of his profits are lost to file-sharing, Jon B. described the futility of going after websites as the sheer numbers are too much to cope with. Instead, Red Light District is deciding whether to go after individual sharers, as is the case with RIAA, MPAA and Logistep-type actions.

“If it scares them enough, if it can take away 20% of the illegal downloads, we’ll be doing the best that we can,” he added.

During the next 24 hours we will publish an interview with a prominent figure involved in these cases, in which we will investigate Logistep’s dubious practices around Europe. Stay tuned.

Thanks to _bc

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Over the last couple of weeks we’ve reported how parts of the adult content industry is aiming to tackle sites which they believe are involved in the illegal distribution of their intellectual property.

Titan Media advertise themselves as ‘the premier creator of all-male erotica’, (aka ‘gay porn’) and they are also cracking down on sites and individuals who they say are illegally using their content.

Previously, after the CEO of anti-piracy company BayTSP refused to chase porn file sharers saying: “We don’t want to be known in the porn space”, companies like Titan had to go it alone, even going as far as complaining directly to KaZaA in 2004.

No stranger to taking (or at least threatening) legal action against P2P in more recent years, Titan has previously targeted sharers on the eDonkey and other networks, including several blogs.

Now, according to industry publication AVN, Titan Media has shut down what it calls ‘an online gay porn piracy ring’, which in reality were half a dozen blogs (some hosted by Google) carrying links to gay porn stored on sites such as Rapidshare.

The lawsuit filed in the Northern District of California names Gilbert Michael Gonzales (aka ‘MikeyG’) as the brains behind the operation, also listed 21 ‘John Doe’ as defendants and alleges copyright infringement of 45 Titan Media productions.

President of Titan Media, Keith Webb told AVN: “The message we are sending is that you can run, but you cannot hide. Mr. Gonzalez thought he could hide behind anonymous blogs and postings, but he was seriously mistaken. People need to realize that nothing they do online is anonymous. Every single posting, upload, download, or page view is tracked and recorded, and can eventually be traced back to the individual. Mr. Gonzales taunted us in his online blog postings to try and catch him and shut him down…so we did. If you steal Titan Media property, we will identify you and we will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.”

Back in 2004, Titan admitted tracking down those it said infringed its copyrights and threatening them with legal action. However, as an alternative to a messy and costly lawsuit, it offered alleged file-sharers an amnesty in return for them taking out a valid subscription to Titan Media’s products. Titan did not immediately respond to emails requesting a comment so we are unable to confirm if this is still the case.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.