In a ruling by United States District Judge Thomas P. Griesa in the United States District Court in Manhattan, Grooveshark parent company Escape Media and two of the company’s top executives were found liable for infringing the rights of the labels on a grand scale.

The summary judgment is not a pretty read. It summarizes Grooveshark’s history and how the service began with licensed aims in mind, but achieved that by infringing the labels’ rights in the hope of reaching deals later on.

The initial problem was obtaining content to offer to users. The company solved the issue by getting employees to “seed” music to other users via its own P2P sharing software known as Sharkbyte. A 2007 email from co-founder Josh Greenberg to employees reads:

Please share as much music as possible from outside the office, and leave your computers on whenever you can. This initial content is what will help to get our network started—it’s very important that we all help out! If you have available hard drive space on your computer, I strongly encourage you to fill it with any music you can find. Download as many MP3’s as possible, and add them to the folders you’re sharing on Grooveshark. Some of us are setting up special “seed points” to house tens or even hundreds of thousands of files, but we can’t do this alone… There is no reason why ANYONE in the company should not be able to do this, and I expect everyone to have this done by Monday… IF I DON’T HAVE AN EMAIL FROM YOU IN MY INBOX BY MONDAY, YOU’RE ON MY OFFICIAL SHIT LIST.

In 2007, music obtained via Sharkbyte and other means was used to populate Grooveshark’s central music storage library. Internal company emails showed Greenberg, Tarantino and Escape’s senior programmer encouraging employees to bring in and download music so it could be uploaded to the company’s servers.

By 2008 the Grooveshark service carried more than a million tracks, including thousands uploaded by Greenberg, Tarantino and other employees. That service grew by another million tracks and eventually into the streaming service available today.

A year later the service was beginning to receive DMCA takedown notices but according to the decision handed down yesterday, the company had a solution to keep that content online.

“Escape’s senior officers searched for infringing songs that had [been] removed in response to DMCA takedown notices and re-uploaded infringing copies of those songs to Grooveshark to ensure that the music catalog remained complete,” the decision reads.

Furthermore, records show that thousands of the DMCA notices sent by the labels were forwarded internally to employees, including Greenberg and Tarantino, for the music they had personally uploaded. The fact that employees were uploading content became known to the labels following discovery in another case currently before the courts.

While the Court accepted that Escape and its employees uploaded thousands of tracks, the huge numbers claimed by the labels were rejected. In total the Court found that the defendants are liable for uploading ‘just’ 5,977 copyright works.

And, of course, there is the not insignificant number of tracks the company streamed to its users over the course of its operations. Escape’s own records show that it “streamed or publicly performed”, copies of plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings at least 36 million times.

“Each time Escape streamed one of plaintiffs’ song recordings, it directly infringed upon plaintiffs’ exclusive performance rights,” the decision reads.

As a result of Greenberg and Tarantino instructing company employees to upload copyright-protected music to Grooveshark, the Court granted the labels’ motion for summary judgment on its claim for direct copyright infringement.

On the secondary infringement front the Court ruled that Escape Media is liable for the direct infringements of the employees it instructed to upload music.

“[The record labels] advance three theories of secondary liability: (1) vicarious copyright infringement, (2) inducement of copyright infringement, and (3) contributory copyright infringement. The court finds for plaintiffs on all three theories of liability,” the judgment reads.

In respect of Escape’s co-founders, Tarantino and Greenberg, the Court found that they are not only “jointly and severally liable for Escape’s direct and secondary copyright infringement” but also liable for direct infringement due to their own personal uploads of infringing content to Grooveshark.

The judgment concludes with an instruction for the parties to submit proposals on the scope of a permanent injunction against Grooveshark within 21 days. Escape Media has already announced its intention to appeal.

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

While Google cited Terms of Service violations, ongoing copyright-related issues with the world’s largest recording labels were the number one suspect for the takedown. Generally, Grooveshark parent company Escape Media are not on good terms with the RIAA due to legal issues dating back several years.

Last month, however, there appeared to be something of a turnaround in relationships with Google when Grooveshark announced that it was about to debut Chromecast support via the Play Store.

The development was well received, with Hypebot wondering if Google welcoming Grooveshark back amounted to redemption for the US-based streaming company.

But now, less than a month later, it’s all over.

“After a jointly approved press release from Grooveshark, we were notified by Google [that] our app was suspended for Terms of Service of compliance,” Grooveshark announced today.

The development came as a surprise to Grooveshark, since the company believes it did enough to comply with Google’s Terms of Service this time around. However, it will come as no surprise that the root of the complaint lies with the major recording labels based in the United States.

According to a statement sent to TheNextWeb, the RIAA is behind the suspension after claiming that Grooveshark’s service infringes on their artists’ copyrights.

“We found this interesting as Google (YouTube) is also engaged in a lawsuit over the same points,” a Grooveshark spokesperson said.

While that is indeed true, YouTube’s relationships with the labels are considerably better than those currently enjoyed by Grooveshark. Even Google sympathizes with the labels, something which became evident last year when the search giant excluded the term Grooveshark from its Autocomplete and Instant services.

But despite the drawbacks, Grooveshark continues. Grooveshark for Android can still be downloaded from the company’s site. Chromecast functionality also remains.

“You may still access your full Grooveshark library on Chromecast via our main site (grooveshark.com) or html5 mobile site….using the ‘mirroring’ tool,” the company concludes.

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

The group, which has the MPAA and RIAA as key members, had just started piloting a kindergarten through sixth grade curriculum on copyright in California schools.

The curriculum was drafted in collaboration with the California School Libraries Association and iKeepSafe, who aim to teach kids the basics of copyright. The lesson materials were rather one-sided, however, often ignoring fair use and the free-to-share copyright licences Creative Commons provides.

These concerns were later picked up by the mainstream press, creating a massive backlash. Responding to the critique the CCI and other partners were quick to state that it was just a pilot and that the final materials would probably be more balanced.

Glen Warren, vice president of the California School Library Association, acknowledged the problems and suggested that the early drafts were coming straight from the content industry.

“We’re moving along trying to get things a little closer to sanity. That tone and language, that came from that side of the fence, so to speak,” Warren commented.

This week, TorrentFreak spotted the final version of the curriculum and it’s clear that the public outcry for more nuance has paid off.

Instead of focusing on enforcement and the things people can’t do with copyrighted content, it now emphasizes that sharing can be a good thing. Creative Commons licenses are discussed in detail and every lesson plan also informs students about fair use.

For example, in the old second grade lesson plan the teacher was supposed to say the following sentence:

“You’re not old enough yet to be selling your pictures online, but pretty soon you will be. And you’ll appreciate if the rest of us respect your work by not copying it and doing whatever we want with it.”

While the above paragraph ignores the fact that some people are happy to share their photos with flexible Creative Commons licenses, it has been completely removed from the final version.

The sentence “we recognize that it’s hard work to produce something, and we want to get paid for our work” has been completely stripped from the lesson plan too. Instead students are reminded that “the projects they created are fun / informative / respectful, and so they may want to share them online.”

The sixth grade lesson material has also been thoroughly updated, as well as the accompanying video which doubled in length to explain fair use.

The changes become clear by comparing the old “purpose” and “key concepts” with the new one. Below is a copy of the old text, with no reference to fair use and Creative Commons licenses.

And here’s the new and improved version, with these two concepts included, and without the strong focus on consequences for “illegal use.”

Another positive change is that instead of warning students against using copyrighted images and music from the Internet in Powerpoint presentations, they are now told that this is totally fine, as long as the material is only shown in class.

Similar changes have been made throughout the entire curriculum, which is now much more balanced than the rather strict and biased view that was presented before.

There’s still one question that lingers in the back of our mind though. Would the curriculum have been as balanced as it is right now if we hadn’t pointed out the problems in the first place?

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

The situation now faced by ReelRadio, a site dedicated to the streaming of archived historical radio, sits at the other end of the spectrum, but nevertheless the site is still facing potential dismantling by the RIAA.

In existence since 1996, ReelRadio still looks and feels like a site made in, well, 1996. Its classic feel is further outdated by the content it hosts, decades-old ‘aircheck’ demo recordings which were often used to showcase radio announcers before being placed in the archives.

Aircheck recordings appear to be popular among nostalgia hunters who can pick a memorable year from their life or another historical moment and become transported back in time. It’s a million miles away from what most people see as damaging piracy yet the RIAA is now applying the copyright thumbscrews to tax-exempt ReelRadio.

The problem is this. Airchecks are broadly split into two categories. ‘Unscoped’ airchecks contain not only the DJ or announcer’s voice, but also the music played in between. Airchecks recorded for troops fighting in Vietnam, for example, contain music being played during that era. ‘Scoped’ airchecks have the announcer’s voice intact but the music removed, leaving edited recordings that fail to flow.

ReelRadio streams both kind of recordings, or rather it did until the RIAA came knocking just over a week ago. Let’s be clear, ReelRadio does in fact have a license to play the music contained in its ‘unscoped’ airchecks. However, after years of operating trouble-free, the RIAA now wants the site to operate strictly within the parameters of its statutory license.

“The RIAA has determined that our service fails to meet the requirements for ‘archived programs’, which must be at least five hours in duration and may not be made available for more than two weeks. The service must also display the Title, Artist and Album of each featured song, but only while the recording is being performed,” ReelRadio President Richard Irwin explains.

The problems faced by the site are immediate. Irwin says he carries no airchecks with a duration of five hours and obviously the site makes them available for more than two weeks. Also, their streaming method does not cater to the display of meta-data. Worse still, it appears the RIAA also wants ReelRadio to do the impossible.

“The RIAA insists that we obtain permission from the copyright owners of these old radio broadcasts. Many broadcasters understand the difficulty of this requirement, since nearly all radio stations have changed ownership, format, and call letters, many times over,” Irwin explains.

“Nevertheless, we are expected to provide the RIAA with an explanation of how we have permission from radio stations that no longer exist and copyright owners who have no interest in historic recordings of their property.”

As a result of the RIAA complaint, ReelRadio has been forced to remove more than 1,100 ‘unscoped’ airchecks. Its ‘scoped’ airchecks, which are not part of its license, remain available under ‘fair use’ provisions.

The RIAA has given ReelRadio until August 8 to provide its response and holds the ability to close the site entirely by suspending its license. Whether it will choose to do so remains to be seen, but it’s clear that if it does there will be no gain whatsoever to the RIAA, but a really big loss to history.

“I would like to see the RIAA recognize the unique character of our historical archive,” Irwin told TorrentFreak.

“The statutory law was written for online radio stations and automated playout systems. It didn’t consider historical radio recordings. The law is outdated and inadequate. They don’t have to go any further, and they shouldn’t.”

Legally the RIAA appears to be on solid ground, but the court of public opinion on preserving nostalgia is likely to see things quite differently.

Those wanting to check out some unscoped airchecks can do so on YouTube. They won’t be going anywhere soon, there’s little doubt about that, so check out the gem below featuring the world’s easiest phone-in competition followed by a piece of unbelievable advertising for Winston cigarettes (1m 30s).

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

The argument is that Google should take responsibility for what the wider Internet is doing by doctoring its search results and AutoSuggest/AutoComplete features in order to promote legal content while relegating pirate sources to the poor leagues.

The record labels claim that little has happened on this front so we decided to carry out some tests of our own. How quickly could we find both legal and illegal popular music using only Google’s search and suggestions?

The rules

Searching for the current Billboard Top 10, we carried out two searches for each track. One would aim to find infringing content and the other only legal options. We entered no more letters of a song than needed and stopped when Google began guiding us with its AutoSuggest options which we accepted. Any more than ten keypresses or clicks overall would be classed as an abort.

Track #1 – Fancy – Iggy Azalea Featuring Charli XCX

Search for unauthorized download

Google Search Entry – “fancy_”
AutoSuggest offered – “fancy mp3″
Best offer: MP3Skull (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 9

Search for authorized track

Google Search Entry – “fan”
AutoSuggest offered – “fancy”
Best Offer: Vevo (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 5

Winner: Legal option (VEVO/YouTube)

—————————————————————————————

#2 Rude – MAGIC!

Search for unauthorized download

Google Search entry – “rud”
AutoSuggest offered – “rude mp3″
Best Offer: MP3Skull (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 6

Search for authorized track

Google Search entry – “rud”
AutoSuggest offered – “rude magic”
Best Offer: Vevo (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 5

Winner: Legal option (VEVO/YouTube)

—————————————————————————————

#3 Problem – Ariana Grande Featuring Iggy Azalea

Search for unauthorized download

Google Search Entry – “probl”
AutoSuggest offered – “problem ariana grande mp3″
Best Offer: MP3Skull (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 7

Search for authorized track

Google Search Entry – “prob”
AutoSuggest offered – “problem ariana grande”
Best offer: Vevo (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 5

Winner: Legal option (VEVO/YouTube)

—————————————————————————————

#4 – Am I Wrong – Nico & Vinz

Search for unauthorized download

Google Search entry – “am_”
AutoSuggest offered – “am i wrong mp3″
Best offer: MP3Skull (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 6

Search for authorized track

Google Search entry – “am i w”
AutoSuggest offered – “am i wrong nico and vinz”
Best offer: Vevo (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 8

Winner: Pirate option (MP3Skull)

—————————————————————————————

#5 Stay With Me – Sam Smith

Search for unauthorized download

Google Search entry – “stay_w”
AutoSuggest offered – “stay with me sam smith mp3″
Best offer: MP3Skull (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 9

Search for authorized track

Google Search entry – “stay”
AutoSuggest offered – “stay with me”
Best offer: Vevo (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 5

Winner: Legal option (VEVO/YouTube)

—————————————————————————————

#6 Wiggle – Jason Derulo Featuring Snoop Dogg

Search for unauthorized download

Google Search entry – “wigg”
AutoSuggest offered – “wiggle jason derulo mp3″
Best offer: MP3Skull (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 7

Search for authorized track

Google Search entry – “wig”
AutoSuggest offered – “wiggle jason derulo”
Best offer: Vevo (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 5

Winner: Legal option (VEVO/YouTube)

—————————————————————————————

#7 – Summer – Calvin Harris

Search for unauthorized download

Google Search entry – “summer_”
AutoSuggest offered – “summer calvin harris mp3″
Several ‘pirate’ results failed.

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = Aborted (more than 10)

Search for authorized track

Google Search entry – “sum”
AutoSuggest offered – “summer”
Best offer: Vevo (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 5

Winner: Legal option (VEVO/YouTube)

—————————————————————————————

#8 All Of Me – John Legend

Search for unauthorized download

Google Search entry – “all_o”
AutoSuggest offered – “all of me john legend mp3″
Best Offer: MP3Fon (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 8

Search for authorized track

Google Search entry – “all_of_me_j”
AutoSuggest offered – “all of me john legend”
Best offer: Vevo (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 13

Winner: Pirate option (MP3Fon)

—————————————————————————————

#9 – Maps – Maroon 5

Search for unauthorized download

Google Search entry – “maps_maro”
AutoSuggest offered – “maps maroon 5 mp3″
Best offer: MP3Skull (second result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 12

Search for authorized track

Google Search entry – “maps_m”
AutoSuggest offered – “maps maroon 5″
Best offer: Vevo (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 8

Winner: Legal option (VEVO/YouTube)

—————————————————————————————

#10 – Turn Down For What – DJ Snake & Lil Jon

Search for unauthorized download

Google Search entry – “turn_d”
AutoSuggest offered – (turn down for what mp3)
Best offer: MP3Skull (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 9

Search for authorized track

Google Search entry – “turn”
AutoSuggest offered – “turn down for what”
Best offer: Vevo (top result)

Total keypresses and clicks before listening = 6

Winner: Legal option (VEVO/YouTube)
—————————————————————————————

Conclusions

From the above results we can see that when using only a song title and then taking Google’s suggestions, most of the time those searching for pirate content will take longer to access it than those looking to go legal.

However, what we’re talking about here is a difference of a handful of clicks, which is hardly the accessibility chasm the RIAA and BPI were aiming for. Pressuring Google and sending millions of DMCA takedown notices every month appears to have had little effect on pirate availability.

Also, it’s also worth noting that if the YouTube/Vevo results were ignored in our tests or removed from Google results altogether, finding legal alternatives would become much harder since iTunes and similar sites are rarely, if ever, on the first page of Google results following either a ‘pirate’ or ‘legal’ search for music.

Google has told the record labels that they need to do something about that themselves, by making their sites more crawlable, but it appears that security concerns have hindered progress on that front to the point that sites like MP3Skull with relatively tiny budgets can beat them at every turn.

It’s difficult to blame anyone but the labels and their partners for that problem.

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

Most of the requests, nearly 2 million, were for URLs belonging to the cyberlocker search engine filestube.com, which now operates under a new domain name. The MP3 download portals pisamba.com, downloads.nl, mp3skull.com and beemp3.com complete the top five with between 1.3 and 1.6 allegedly infringing links each.

While Google swiftly removes infringing links from its search index, the RIAA remains unhappy with how the takedown process in general is working. One of the main issues is that several foreign websites simply ignore takedown notices, or put the links back under a slightly modified URL.

“All those links to infringing music files that were automatically repopulated by each pirate site after today’s takedown will be re-indexed and appear in search results tomorrow,” RIAA CEO Cary Sherman said previously.

“Every day we have to send new notices to take down the very same links to illegal content we took down the day before. It’s like ‘Groundhog Day’ for takedowns.”

For the RIAA and other copyright holders there are few options to deal with these ‘rogue’ sites. However, the music industry group believes that Google and other search engines can do more to prevent people from accessing pirate sites through their services.

The RIAA believes that search engines should strike a deal with copyright holders to make sure that pirated files stay down through advanced filtering techniques.

In addition the RIAA wants Google to lift all takedown limits, push down pirate sites in search results, promote legal sites and services, remove pirate terms from Autocomplete and completely remove “repeat infringers” from their search index.

Google sees things differently and believes that it’s already doing enough. The company’s Senior Copyright Policy Counsel Katherine Oyama previously noted that copyright holders should consider better SEO, and focus on offering consumers what they want; decent legal alternatives.

“The best way to battle piracy is with better, more convenient, legitimate alternatives to piracy, as services ranging from Netflix to Spotify to iTunes have demonstrated. The right combination of price, convenience, and inventory will do far more to reduce piracy than enforcement can,” she said.

Over the past few months numerous copyright holders and lawmakers have increased their pressure on Google, but the search engine shows no intention of changing its policies. The longer the current standoff continues, the more likely it is that this issue will eventually be fought out in court.

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

Continuing the trend from recent years the total revenue of the anti-piracy group dropped once again, to $24.2 million. This is a record low in recent history, and down more than 50% compared to four years ago.

The drop is a direct result of the decrease in membership dues the RIAA receives from the record labels, which makes up almost its entire budget. Apparently the labels have decided to put less money into anti-piracy efforts, or stop the payments altogether.

On the plus side there is a small amount of income from anti-piracy settlements, including that obtained through the Limewire lawsuit. In 2012/2013 the “anti-piracy restitution” proceeds were $170,880, which is relatively low considering that the Limewire case alone was settled for $105 million.

Thanks to continuing employee cutbacks and lower legal fees the RIAA is still financially healthy. The reported loss over the reported year was $170,000, but this is easily covered by the $14 million in total assets.

The organization employed 58 people in 2012 and the total salary costs amounted to $11.6 million. Previously, the music industry group had well over 100 employees.

The RIAA’s chief executive Cary Sherman is the highest paid employee with a salary of just over a million dollars. In addition, the RIAA boss received several bonuses which totaled $498,000.

Also high up the payment roster are Senior Executive Vice President Mitch Glazier, General Counsel Steve Marks and Executive Vice President International Neil Turkewitz, making over half a million dollars each.

Looking at other costs we see that the money spent on lobbying efforts remains static at roughly $2 million. Legal fees are just under $1 million, which is about the same as last year. However, four years ago legal fees were a massive $16 million, making the cutback in legal efforts one of the main cost savers.

While the RIAA’s revenue continues to drop, the overall decline is relatively modest when compared to last year. This suggests that the group has more or less finished its financial reorganization, and that the RIAA will now go forward with fewer lawsuits and employees.

The anti-piracy group may have halved in size over the last four years, which is significant, but there are no signs that it will disband entirely.

The full 2012/2013 filing, obtained by TorrentFreak, is available here.

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

“Megaupload was built on an incentive system that rewarded users for uploading the most popular content to the site, which was almost always stolen movies, TV shows and other commercial entertainment content,” Fabrizio commented when the MPAA filed its suit.

However, data from Megaupload’s database shared with TorrentFreak shows that employees of MPAA and RIAA member companies had hundreds of accounts at the file-storage site. This includes people working at Disney, Warner Bros., Paramount, 20th Century Fox, Universal Music Group, Sony, and Warner Music.

In total, there were 490 Megaupload accounts that were connected to MPAA and RIAA members, who sent 181 premium payments in total. Together, these users uploaded 16,455 files which are good for more than 2,097 gigabytes in storage.

Remember, those are only from addresses that could be easily identified as belonging to a major movie studio or record label, so the real numbers should be much higher.

But there’s more. The same companies that are now asking for millions of dollars in damages due to massive copyright infringement were previously eager to work with Megaupload and Megavideo.

As we noted previously, Disney, Warner Brothers, Fox and others contacted Kim Dotcom’s companies to discuss advertising and distribution deals.

For example, Shelina Sayani, Digital Marketing Coordinator for Warner Bros, offered a deal to syndicate “exciting” Warner content to Megaupload’s Megavideo site.

Subject: Warner Bros. – Looking for Content Manager
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:55:50 -0800
From: Sayani, Shelina
To: demand@megavideo.com

Dear Megavideo,

I’m writing from Warner Bros., offering opportunities to syndicate our exciting entertainment content (e.g. Dark Knight, Harry Potter, Sex and the City clips and trailer) for your users. Could you please pass on my information to the appropriate content manager or forward me to them? Thanks so much for your time.

Shelina Sayani
WB Advanced Digital Services
3300 W Olive Ave, Bldg 168 Room 4-023
Burbank, CA 91505
818.977.4668

Similarly, Disney attorney Gregg Pendola reached out to Megaupload, not to threaten or sue the company, but to set up a deal to have Disney content posted on the Megavideo site.

Subject: Posting on Megavideo.com
From: “Pendola, Gregg”
Date: 8/13/2008 10:06 AM
To: love@megavideo.com

My name is Gregg Pendola. I am Executive Counsel for The Walt Disney Company. Certain properties of The Walt Disney Company have content that they would like to post on your site.

However, we are uncomfortable with a couple of the provisions of your Terms of Use that we feel may jeopardize our rights in our content. We were hoping that you would be amenable to reviewing a 1-page agreement we have drafted that we would like to use in place of your Terms of Use.

Is there someone I can contact to discuss this? Or someone I can email the Agreement to for review?

Thanks. Gregg

Gregg Pendola
Executive Counsel
The Walt Disney Company

For Fox, the interest in Megaupload wasn’t necessarily aimed at spreading studio content, but to utilize Megaupload’s considerable reach by setting up an advertising deal. In this email former Senior Director Matt Barash touts FAN, the Fox Audience Network.

Subject: Fox Ad Partnership
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:09:14 -0800
From: Matt Barash
To: sales@megaupload.com

I’m reaching out to see if you have a few minutes to discuss the recently launched Fox Audience Network.

FAN is now up and running and fully operational, utilizing best of breed optimization technology to bring cutting edge relevancy to the ad network landscape.
We are scaling rapidly and seeking the right 3rd party publishers to add as partners to our portfolio.

Please let me know if you have some time to chat this week about how we can work together to better monetize your inventory.

Best,
Matt

Matt Barash
Director, Publisher Development
Fox Audience Network

The above are just a few examples of major industry players who wanted to team up with Kim Dotcom. Now, several years later, the same companies accuse the site of being one of the largest piracy vehicles the Internet has ever seen.

If the MPAA and RIAA cases proceed, Megaupload’s defense will probably present some of these examples to highlight the apparent double standard. That will be an interesting narrative to follow, for sure.

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

In a complaint filed at a Virginia District Court, the studios described Megaupload as a business designed and operated with copyright infringement in mind. Over the course of its life the site generated millions of dollars at the expense of the movie industry, the studios say, and for this Dotcom and partners Mathias Ortmann and Bram Van Der Kolk must be held accountable.

But fighting Hollywood is not the only thing that Dotcom has to worry about. In a fresh complaint filed yesterday in Virginia, Warner Music, UMG Recordings, Sony Music and Capitol Records teamed up against Megaupload, Vestor Limited, Kim Dotcom, Mathias Ortmann and Bram Van Der Kolk in pursuit of yet more millions in damages.

The RIAA’s 30-page complaint appears to be substantially the same as that filed by the movie studios, with claims that Dotcom and his associates “actively and intentionally” encouraged users to upload infringing copies of popular content in order to distribute those copies to millions of people without a license.

The complaint, which lists 87 specific copyright works from artists including Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Katy Perry, Beyonce, Coldplay and David Guetta, treads familiar ground when it comes to the rewards program Megaupload was said to operate.

“Indeed, for several years, through what it called an ‘Uploader Rewards’ program, Defendants even paid their users to upload popular content that Defendants knew infringed copyrights, until Defendants finally discontinued this program a few months before their indictment,” the RIAA writes.

Unsurprisingly the RIAA heavily references the US Government’s action against Megaupload, noting that in 2011 the site was designated a “notorious market” by the USTR. Of course, just a month later Megaupload was shut down and by the end of January 2012 its operators were being indicted on charges including criminal copyright infringement.

In common with their movie industry counterparts, the RIAA demands a trial by jury on allegations of direct copyright infringement, inducement of copyright infringement, vicarious and contributory infringement against all defendants. Millions of dollars are at stake but Kim Dotcom’s U.S. attorney Ira Rothken believes that the lawsuit will not succeed.

“The RIAA, MPAA, and DOJ are like three blind mice following each other in the pursuit of meritless copyright claims and [an] assault on copyright neutral cloud technology,” Rothken said.

“Megaupload strongly believes it’s going to prevail.”

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

Up until now “pirating” YouTube users would only get a slap on the wrist by Google, and have their YouTube accounts terminated at worst. However, it appears that the RIAA has had enough and is now going after the uploaders of two leaked Chris Brown tracks.

The RIAA’s quest started earlier this month when Vice President Anti-Piracy Mark McDevitt contacted YouTube personally to demand the takedown of the leaked tracks “New Flame” and “Die it For You.”

“We are asking you for your immediate assistance in stopping this unauthorized activity,” McDevitt wrote in a letter to the video hosting service.

“Specifically, we request that you ensure the removal of the infringing files from your system, or that you disable access to the infringing files, and that you inform the site operator of the illegality of his or her conduct,” he added.

YouTube was quick to comply, as both videos are unavailable at the time of writing. However, the RIAA didn’t stop there. Instead, the music group went to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to obtain a subpoena for the personal details of the uploader, or uploaders.

In their request the RIAA explains that it requires a subpoena to identify those responsible for the uploads. Among other things, they are looking for the IP-addresses and emails associated with the accounts in question.

“The purpose for which this subpoena is sought is to obtain the identity or identities of the individual or individuals assigned to this URL,” RIAA writes. “This information will only be used for the purposes of protecting the rights granted to our members, the sound recording copyright owners, under [the DMCA].”

The RIAA’s request for a subpoena was granted by a court clerk on the same day. This means that YouTube now has until April 15 to hand over the requested information, unless it decides to appeal.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that the RIAA has gone after YouTube users. Whether this is an isolated incident has yet to be seen, but it wouldn’t be a surprise if the record labels want to set an example.

The RIAA has been an active proponent of criminalizing those who “stream” copyrighted videos in the past. While that failed through the PIPA bill, this may be an opportunity for them to test the water under current copyright laws.

In any case, YouTube users should be aware that the RIAA and others can obtain their personal details on a whim.

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