TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

“Six Strikes” Evidence Still Waiting for Impartial Re-review

Last year it was revealed that the “independent and impartial expert” that reviewed the six-strikes scheme evidence was a former RIAA lobbying firm. To restore the public’s faith in the BitTorrent monitoring scheme, CCI promised to promptly appoint a new independent expert. However, TorrentFreak has learned that after several months the group is still to decide who will carry out the review of the evidence review.

reviewLast week the six-strikes anti-piracy system was launched by the Center for Copyright Information (CCI) and since then thousands of Internet subscribers have received so-called copyright alerts.

The evidence at the base of the accusations is provided by the copyright holders who hired a company called MarkMonitor (DtecNet) to snoop on BitTorrent users.

This information then goes to the Internet providers, who forward it to their customers in the form of a “copyright alert”.

To guarantee the accuracy of the evidence behind the accusations the parties agreed to hire an impartial and independent technology expert, but October last year their commitment to this promise was questioned when the expert turned out to be Stroz Friedberg, a former RIAA lobbying group.

The CCI realized that this was an unfortunate pick and the group quickly announced that a new expert would re-review the evidence. With this re-examination CCI hoped to restore the public’s faith in the six-strikes scheme.

“We are sensitive to any appearance that Stroz lacks independence, and so CCI has decided to have another expert review Stroz’s initial evaluation of the content community’s processes. We will be selecting the additional expert promptly and will make that information available,” CCI’s Executive Director Jill Lesser said last October.

Nearly five months have passed since that announcement, and with the six-strikes scheme in full effect we wondered what the status on the re-examination is. Quite surprisingly, there appears to have been very little progress.

The CCI informed TorrentFreak that a new independent expert is yet to be picked. The group could give no further details but it’s safe to assume that it will take at least a few more months before the re-review is completed. By that time, millions of subscribers may have already received their alerts.

Fortunately, the initial evidence gathering review by the ‘tainted’ Stroz Friedberg seemed solid. Nonetheless, considering the sensitivities and the fact that millions of people are affected, the wise choice would have been to get the re-examination done as soon as possible.

It will be interesting to see how many reports of wrongful accusations, if any, will surface during the coming months. If MarkMonitor’s track record of DMCA notices sent to Google is any indication, there might be a few mistakes here and there.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • anonymous

    they might as well just come clean and tell everyone that the ‘independent witness’ is another present or former entertainment industries employee of some form. there isn’t a hope in hell of them ever employing someone who is independent. even if this mythical person were to exist (more chance of finding a UNICORN), within 6 weeks they would be as corrupted as the politicians that keep ramping up the copyright laws!!

  • steve

    It has to someone not involved with congress, senate, MPAA, or RIAA

    • jimbo

      guess that leaves just the homeless person down the road or God then and we all know who it will be out of those two, dont we!

      • utuxia

        part of Obama’s plan to put the nation back to work?

  • Trespass22

    Price is probably an issue since whatever company takes the job needs to be paid off…

  • Who

    LOL…….sorry I just can’t help but laugh @ all this BS.

  • BJonesTF

    I should note, I’ve contacted the CCI myself, and offered my name and that of our researcher (who has been working with attorneys on copyright troll cases as an expert).

    Strangely, we’ve not heard back….

    • One-Eyed Willie

      I will offer my services for free as an “independent and impartial expert”. LOL does anyone really think they will get a truly impartial person? Fuck no, they will rig the game as usual and try to hide behind phrases like “independent and impartial expert” Newsflash fuckers! You are not fooling anyone!

      • Guest

        be cevil.

        • One-Eyed Willie

          are you civil when someone tries to rob you?

        • utuxia

          pirating is stealing. but i love how you claim to be the victim. that’s very liberal of you.

        • Disturb3d

          I can’t believe idiots like you still use the term “stealing”, I guess I’ll have to explain it again. Stealing is when you take something from someone else and they no longer have it. Pirating is copyright infringement not “stealing”.

        • MadAsASnake

          Pirating is not stealling and accusing innocents of something they have not done is victimisation.

        • utuxia

          Sure its stealing. any argument against that is proposterous. You’re taking creative work done by someone else and not paying them for it.

        • MadAsASnake

          No it’s not. Set in stone law. Why would you say I’m taking someone elses creative works without paying them? On what evidence? IP? IP is so dismally poor that you cannot accuse anyone of anything with it. It accuses: printers, dead people, people without computers, account holders, and, very very occaisonally an infringer.

        • utuxia

          You’re talking about whether or not you can prove your stealing. That remains to be seen. I’m just talking reality here. If you pirate content, you are stealing it. You can twist it all up however you want, or whatever makes you feel better. Even claim to be the victim if you want. But the fact of the matter is, if you produced and licensed the content, and someone takes it without paying for it, then its stealing.

        • MadAsASnake

          No, when you steal something, the party stolen from no longer has it. Pretty much central to every definition of stealing I’m aware of. Especially the legal ones. You can make whatever moral judgment you like about copyright infringement, but it is NOT stealing. The copyright holder looses nothing. The second point I am making is that these strikes schemes are no better than the extortion scam of ACS Law, Steele, and so on. The majority of the accused will not be the offender (if there even is one) and in many cases will have no way to assist in that identification. All these schemes work either by assuming guilt on the accountholder, or straight out extortion. Now, if you are following the Prenda Law thing, you’ll know that judge Wright does not beleive IP evidence alone is enough to expect disclosure, and certainly not enough to make an accusation. You can twist that up any way you like, but extorting innocent people (which is what this is) is really vile behaviour, and definitely illegal.

        • SaneAsAHuman

          By your reasoning there would be no copyright law at all. The whole purpose of copyright is to give the rights holder control over who gets to posses a copy of their intellectual property. By downloading an illegal copy you are depriving them of their right to control their property. That is very much stealing. Just because you can download something for free doesn’t give you a claim to the moral high ground.

        • MadAsASnake

          No it’s not. The original reason, shortly after the invention of the printing press was suppression of political and religious discourse that was at odds with the crown view. The US constitution puts it as maximisation of the production of creative works. The other part of this is to make it as widely available as possible (this is basic utilitarianism – you might want to read up on some John Stuart Mill) as there is no point creating it if you don’t make it available. Now, as far as I can see, “piracy” is more consistent with this view, and the concept of a liberal society than yours. Also, there is nothing in what I am saying that neuters copyright. What neuters copyright is the simple fact that through the years, there have been serious technical and cost barriers to copying this stuff. In the 50′s copying TV shows wasn’t done because affordable technology to do so did not exist. VCR changed that. Now, digital equipment, especially the ubiquitous PC and Internet have effectively removed that barrier entirely. Note that none of these technologies have done as you doom sayers continually predict – which is to kill the industry – it doesn’t. The rent seeking from these industries has to stop – not because it is morally reprehensible (which it is), but because modern technology will solve the problem if the gatekeepers are to damn stupid to do so themselves. I will download stuff for free if you don’t make an intelligent market offering (ie, if you want way too much for it, place overly restrictive terms on it (like DRM), don’t offer it at all, make it so hard to get that it might as well not be available, and so on). I’ll do the same if it is older than normally accepted and acceptable time limits (~10 years). Now if these industries can’t work out how to make money from me in the envelope I have offered – they don’t get paid. Simple.

        • 7th_Guest

          Someone must’ve pirated your reasoning ability, it seems.

        • DRuNKeN MaSTeR

          A simple video to help you understand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4

      • gsus

        They are fooling the people they want, the politicians,lobbyists,and the none tech savvy people.

    • Guest

      Uh, duh? What kinda dumbshit are you taking them for? They don’t want people to pass the system for being impartial – they want people to pass the system so they can find people GUILTY, silly!

  • IDIOCRACY

    I would be willing to do the job “proper” hehe

  • Anyone

    the problem for them is that if it is someone actually impartial the whole scheme would collapse

  • Milkshake Man

    I agree, it will be interesting to see how many reports of wrongful accusations, if any, will surface during the coming months.

    • utuxia

      i’m just waiting for spammers and phishers to start mass emailing CSA notices to everyone. Then the real ones will simply be lost in the noise. and people will learn not to click on anything DMCA related, otherwise you get your identity stolen.

  • joexxx

    Evidence review for what?
    Only a court of law can decide on the evidence and guilt.

    • utuxia

      actually you agree to arbitration in the service agreement. for $35 you can contest it.

      • MadAsASnake

        Why should you have to pay to contest flawed data?

  • 2j70

    “thousands of Internet subscribers have received so-called copyright alerts.” what’s your source for that is the information on strikes being published? I have really only seen one story on ars. about a user getting a strike i’m surprised it’s been so quiet.

    I don’t know how this system is really that much different than what isp have already been doing for years sending out dmca letters to customers

  • thisguy1337

    I went to the http://www.mypiracy.com site hosted by ScanEye. They are saying that my IP was caught downloading “HereAfter (2010) near the 1st of December of last year. How do I fight this? I did not download any movies from p2p. I have Netflix for over the past 4 years. I looked up that “HereAfter” movie on netflix and I rated it a 1 star, I must of hated it. My isp uses semi-static ip’s, they rotate them every quarter or bi yearly for security. So wtf am I to do. I got netflix, gamefly, rhapsody, all my streaming media bases are covered. So what choices do I have left on fighting this matter. I haven’t received a notice from my ISP, yet. But it shows up when I go to mypiracy.com, any advise?

    • thisguy1337

      Oh and lets not forget to mention that my monthly data quota is only 10gb / month. So why would I waste it on downloading a movie I rated 1 star from netflix. I looked around for links on fighting this accusation and defending myself but they website makes them look like they are never wrong and even if they seem like they are wrong they dismiss the problem to dynamic IP’s, they don’t even offer a way to argue against it when they are saying it is MY IP. It makes me want to make a blog and say how they rape little kids and kick dogs. And if they get mad and say we dont do that. I would say my secret evidence says you do and it is not wrong and there is no way for you to fight it.

      Fuckin cracker jacks.

      • thisguy1337

        Contacting TF, maybe they can give me some advise.

        • nya

          What is wrong with you? As far as I can tell, you haven’t been sent a warning or anything. Why are you panicking?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gear-Mentation/100003097514663 Gear Mentation

        Stop worrying. Those sites make stuff up. Even if you download something, nothing can be proven in court. As to the ISP, if you DO get a letter, just go get a VPN and use it (like Ipredator or AirVPN), and you shouldn’t have any more trouble.

    • The_Strawbear

      I’d ignore the mypiracy result, it sounds like another one of these bullshit sites who make up results on what you’re supposed to have pirated. Previous similar sites have told me I’ve downloaded all manner of things… when all I ever download is midget porn…

    • joexxx

      Do you have a static or dynamic IP with your ISP?

  • ralph

    It took years to develop the CAS. Word is going to get around much more quickly how to defeat it. There are a few good ways to do that and none of them is a big deal.

    This is a really limp effort. The most annoying thing about it is that it probably caused my monthly ISP bill to go up.

    What it will do is educate the general public a little better about the law and about technology. In the long term, this will backfire badly on Big Content because not only will the public hate them, they will be smart enough to avoid their weak attempts at control.

    • Andrew me

      Actually it will be a failure in that a lot of people that did not know how to use torrents or did not realize how easy it is to share things with others on the internet. I suspect they have just opened a can of worms they are going to regret having opened, sadly they are not advertising the six strike system so as that not many people will know it even exists until they start getting strikes against there names, i am sure that with time the courts will order them to notify each and every person signed up to an account though and that is when the fun is going to start.

  • Charles

    Not sure how ISPs could trace customers using OpenDNS, DNSCrypt and PeerBlock. They might be aware of P2P traffic, but ISPs are completely unable to identify the traffic without deep-packet inspection, which facility they simply don’t have!!!!

    • ralph

      hmmmm…..

      DtecNet is the one doing the monitoring for MarkMonitor. They’ve been around a long time and probably have a bunch of different IP addresses. They could be monitoring from cloud servers for example.

      I wouldn’t count on PeerBlock to pick up on a lot of this. As for DNS…well…Bittorrent doesn’t use that a whole lot…just to resolve tracker URLs and such.

      Also, using encryption in the peer wire protocol won’t hide your IP either. that was developed to keep ISPs from recognizing and filtering your Bittorrent traffic.

      A no-log VPN might be a better bet. Up to you, of course. TorrentFreak gave a list a little while back.

      Best of luck.

  • erasmus654

    If they are going to actually follow through and start this whole Six Strikes policy, then there needs to be put into place an additional rule: Any lawyer or Law firm that goes after someone without knowing WHO was actually using a given IP address, AND/or any law firm or individual lawyer that can be shown to have no interest in actually following through with they threats of legal action if they are not payed X amount of money, need to have a ONE strike policy that, if violated, results in the loss of their ability to practice law for the next SIX years.

    We can call it the “One Strike Six Strike” rule/law.
    It’d be fitting, don’t you think?

    • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

      Yeah, that isn’t going to happen in the real world. As much as I am against this copyright bullcrap, you are never going to have a rule like that go into effect. It is unnecessarily punitive.

  • Traveller

    “The CCI informed TorrentFreak that a new independent expert is yet to be picked”

    And will not be picked, you can be sure of it. At least an independent expert.

  • n_mailer

    If anybody’s accounts are affected as a result of unverified strikes, that’s class action money in the bank.

    Who knew “pirating” might actually make you rich?

    • utuxia

      you have a funny defintion of “rich” — last time I was in a class action lawsuit that settled, I got about 18 cents from it.

  • Guest

    The spectacle of Comcast NBC Universal taking it upon itself to arbitrarily curb my service without reimbursing me makes me hug myself with anticipation. It needs to be able to prove it or else.

  • joexxx

    It’s going to be a LONG wait!

  • Andrew Lee

    The six strikes scam is going to eventually end with a class action lawsuit.

  • SumpTump

    I dont get it man, that whole thing jsut makes no sense at all man. None.

    EliteProxy.da.bz

  • JG

    I wonder why they chose to launch without getting it verified by an independent agent first…. I mean it’s not like it hadn’t been delayed before…. And there really wasn’t all that much publicity before – I didn’t see a thing in any main-stream news sources until the day it launched. So it’s not like they had a widely known start-date they had to adhere to…

    I wonder what’ll happen if the independent review finds a serious enough issue…. Will the ISPs be asked to void all issued strikes & start everyone’s tally over again after the issue been resolved?

  • SCP-914: The Clockworks

    You know, IP addresses are incredibly weak as evidence. I mean, people spoof those things all the time. Who’s to say the IP address Mark Monitoring aren’t spoofed as well?

  • That_Anonymous_Coward

    Ohai Ernesto, thanks for getting them to remember what they promised to do. I’ve been a little distracted since Prenda/Steele/Duffy included me in their ill-advised defamation lawsuits.

    Dtecnet knows all about BitTorrent, they seeded files in the past. – AFACT vs iiNet.

    MarkMonitor is a subsidiary of Thompson Reuters.

    The monitoring simply is they join a swarm, record IP addresses, send alerts to the participating ISPs and boom you get an alert.
    I could tell you more, but they redacted the details from the system from the report. Where they tested the technology in a lab setting not connected to the real net… with 1 tracking machine and 1 test download machine. Amazingly they spotted the downloader!

    • MadAsASnake

      I guess there was no spoofing, false IP’s in the tracker or anything else tricky like that… Not a test that would give any confidence…

      • That_Anonymous_Coward

        I’d give confidence to it being a proof of concept. You COULD do this… but we need to try it on the real thing before we can declare it perfect in every way.

        • MadAsASnake

          The reveiw should be on the operation in as real a situation as you can get. The Internet is there – show it working… If they need to present the tool working in such a trivial and utterly controlled environment just to get the demonstration to work, then it is no fit for purpose.

        • That_Anonymous_Coward

          But then they would have to seed a file online again, and that would be infringement and infringement is bad.

        • MadAsASnake

          What? You mean they can’t find a live example without seeding it themselves?

        • That_Anonymous_Coward

          In their “evidence” collection for AFACT vs iiNET they seeded the files to collect IP addresses.
          This has always been a fun question, if they seed the file are copies authorized?
          If they join an existing swarm are they assisting the ‘crime’?
          They have to download the file to verify it is actually the protected content, what happens if they download a mislabeled file? Do they turn themselves in?

        • MadAsASnake

          And if they seed it, they are making it available. It find it difficult to find a valid reason for this, they are complaining that people are using torrents that they themselves put there. I beleive this is true for almost all of these things – probably even true of HADOPI and NZ 3 strikes… Absolutely laughable.

      • 7th_Guest

        It’s important to note that there were also no printers or dead people in that lab too – dodged quite a bullet there with that!

        • That_Anonymous_Coward

          They can’t have a printer in the lab, it could be used to print infringing copies of LoLCat pictures. You just hit a button and you can make copies! ITS HORRIBLE!!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/forkingham.melle Forkingham Melle

    i don’t think there is such thing as an “independent expert”, to be an expert one needs to qualify as experienced in a certain subject or task, and to learn would require working for an institution, which may hold claims to that person through means we may not see until much later, thought for the day
    my weekend question off topic>>>>>
    if i make a zip file with password upload to mega so it can be sent to another person, will that be safe?. i mean, the contents are very sensitive and could spark outrage if they were exposed. i have experimented i have a 100 character password and it sends even though inside there are keywords that breach their terms of service, for instance, i have a spoof mp4 and have called it the avengers movie, even though there is nothing in the file, also a network for dummies pdf, even though it is a word doc that just says, pee off you nosey mo fo

  • JordanKratz

    Everytime they announce an Supposed “Independent Expert” it will be another biased corrupted piece of shit.
    Only a real POS would have anything to do with this Bullshit 6 Strikes Garbage.
    I say Let the Internet Sort them Out ! Who needs God !

  • http://www.facebook.com/forkingham.melle Forkingham Melle

    NOT MY WRITING this from Open democracy

    The digital age has inevitably shaken the concept of copyright to its core. When you have ‘digital’ content, you always have the ‘human readable’ format and you also have the digital expression of the copyrighted material translated by computers into bits – the ones and zeroes. As a result there is a degree of inevitable copying of the work in question. ‘Digital’ means copying, in other words.

    Similarly, networks must make temporary copies to function. So, ‘network’ means copying.

    Computers make copies in order to process and display information. Therefore ‘computer’ also means copying. As a result, the growth of computers accessing content over digital networks means either reinventing information and communications technologies or re-inventing copyright to some extent.

    Unfortunately, it has taken a painfully long time for this fairly simple realisation to dawn on many of the analogue industries that had grown too comfortable to grab the opportunities that the digital revolution offers. One of the best examples of this dogged refusal to accept the most basic concepts of digital technologies was the debate surrounding the copyright status of temporary technical copies created by computer networks.

    In 1999/2000, publishers and the music industry ran an energetic lobbying campaign against a copyright exception for incidental network copies that, “do not interfere with the normal exploitation of the work” by the copyright owner.

    The European Publishers’ Council (EPC) warned in 2001 that “unless we have Parliament’s amendments [to prohibit unauthorised temporary copying] or something similar in effect, we do not have the ability to authorise any kind of copy, regardless of its economic significance, and thereby lose our control over illegal, piratical distribution of our works.”

    The logic of the publishers was somewhat more subtle and more dangerous than it sounds. If every copy in an internet provider’s network would be a copyright infringement, the provider could not function without prior authorisation. Providers would be liable for copies made in the transmission of legal/authorised content and doubly liable (for the copy and the facilitation of the infringement) for illegal/unauthorised content.

    If the amendments in question had been adopted, European Internet companies would have had no option other than to monitor, delete, censor and restrict their customers in every way that the publishers considered appropriate for fighting against copyright infringement – as well as increasing prices by demanding royalties for legitimate content. Of course, 1999/2000 was a lifetime ago in internet years and things have moved on in the meantime.

    Or have they? In 2012, the Austrian High Court has referred the “kino.to” case to the European Court of Justice. One of the questions asked in that case is: “are reproduction [sic] for private use and transient and incident reproduction permissible only if the original reproduction was lawfully reproduced, distributed or made available to the public?”

    The referral attempts to re-open the question of making internet companies independently liable for copyright infringement in relation to every unauthorised file that passes over its network. So, we are back in 2000, with a threat that internet companies could be forced into a “gatekeeper” role as a privatised police force.

    An unwise ruling from the European Court of Justice would speed up an already problematic trend that is fuelled by efforts to use internet companies as private enforcement “tools” in order to protect copyright in the online environment. Even though both ACTA and SOPA failed, their proposals on the enforcement of copyright through “voluntary” arrangements with any or all internet intermediaries live on. The US-led OECD “Communiqué on Principles for Internet Policy-Making”[pdf] adopted in June 2011 talks obscurely of norms of responsibility that enable private sector voluntary co-operation for the protection of intellectual property.

    It somewhat less obscurely reflects an active choice to avoid references to the right to a fair trial and due process of law, choosing instead to refer to “fair process” – which sounds like both, but means neither. This practical implementation of such a policy can be seen in efforts of the United States “IP Enforcement Coordinator”, to exploit the global reach of US companies to take “voluntary” punitive actions against foreign online services considered to be breaching US copyright rules. The “voluntary” measures taken against Wikileaks also give a taster of where this policy is heading. Payment service providers blocked payments to Wikileaks whileAmazon withdrew hosting services.

    This increasing pressure on intermediaries to meddle with content is happening at a particularly inauspicious time. Internet access providers are increasingly demanding the right to interfere with the functioning of the open internet (i.e. undermining the concept of network neutrality). The core value of the internet for free speech is the ‘any-to-any’ concept whereby any part of the network can (broadly speaking) communicate unrestricted with any other part of the network.

    This is now under threat from the privatised enforcement measures demanded by some policy-makers from internet intermediaries that are increasingly finding commercial advantages in making such interventions.

    Suddenly, we end up confronted simultaneously with all the worst aspects of policy-development over the past fifteen years. We have courts questioning the most fundamental elements of the networked environment – the ‘right’ of network providers to make the transient copies that are essential to the functioning of the Internet – the argument that we already had thirteen years ago.

    Layered on top of these existential questions, we have policy-makers tinkering with the most fundamental legal principles of a society that is based on the rule of law, seeking to replace the regulation of free speech and communication by laws and courts with terms of service and the whims of internet access providers, hosting providers, domain name registrars, domain name registries, search engines, payment providers and advertising networks.

    And layered on top of this, we have internet access providers raising their own existential questions about the viability (from their perspective) of the core concept of the internet – the ‘any-to-any’ principle.

  • Pingback: Sistema de alerta contra pirataria nos EUA, gera demanda por VPN e Proxies | Livre Navegar

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.