While it’s not as draconian as similar systems in France and New Zealand, one of the concerns with the copyright alert system is that it requires Internet providers to keep a database of infringing account holders.

The program specifically leaves the door open for the MPAA and RIAA to request a list of serial pirates for legal action. While this may never happen, new court documents reveal that copyright alerts data is already at stake in a lawsuit brought against an alleged BitTorrent user in Texas.

The case, started by adult movie studio Malibu Media last year, is that of a typical copyright troll. It deals with copyright infringements via BitTorrent and after settlement attempts failed, Malibu is now gearing up to take one John Doe defendant to trial.

To do so, Malibu has demanded more information on the accused subscriber from ISP Verizon. Initially the copyright holder requested a long list of details, but this was later limited to the following:

- DMCA notices and if applicable six strike notices sent to the applicable subscribers.
- Defendants’ bandwidth usage.
- Information about the (reliability of the) correlation of the IP-Address to the subscriber for purposes of use at trial.
- Content viewed by Defendants to the extent the content is the same show or movie that Plaintiff learned from third-party BitTorrent scanning companies that Defendants also used BitTorrent to download and distribute.

Interestingly, this list includes the warnings that are being sent out under the copyright alert system.

The case appears to have gone smoothly, up to a point. The court granted a subpoena for the information and the John Doe defendant agreed to release it. However, Verizon has refused to hand over the details.

Among other things, the provider claims that “the subpoena is intended to harass Verizon,” particularly in the light of a motion Verizon filed against Malibu Media earlier this year. Verizon further points out that it wants to protect its customers from “shakedown tactics against Doe defendants.”

To compel Verizon to comply with the subpoena, Malibu filed a “motion to enforce” at a Texas District Court yesterday in which the studio explains that the requested information is crucial for the upcoming trial.

The six strikes alerts, for example, could show a pattern of infringing behavior that can be used against the defendant. The same is true for bandwidth usage according to the adult studio.

“DMCA notices and six strike notices are relevant because these notices may prove a pattern of infringement and/or notice that infringement is occurring. Bandwidth usage is relevant because people who are heavy BitTorrent users use significantly more bandwidth than normal internet users,” Malibu writes.

While it’s not known whether the defendant has ever received a copyright alert, the Center for Copyright Information will not be pleased with these latest developments.

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

The parties agreed to implement a system through which subscribers are warned that their copyright infringements have been monitored by rightsholders. After several warnings ISPs may then take a variety of repressive measures against alleged infringers.

After more than a year of delays the plan will officially roll out in the first weeks of this year.

One of the ISPs taking part is Verizon. Previously, the ISP made some remarks about the various punishments it would hand out to subscribers but in common with other participating providers the company has not yet announced the full details. Today, we can do this for them.

TorrentFreak has obtained a complete overview of how Verizon’s alert scheme will work and details of the mitigation measures they intend to put in place. The document is stored on Verizon’s web server but due to its placement is currently unfindable using Google.

When the IP-address of a Verizon customer is caught sharing copyrighted works on BitTorrent, the responsible account holder will first get two notification alerts. These inform the customer about the alleged copyright infringements and also explain how file-sharing software can be removed from their computer.

Alert 1 and 2

“Are delivered by email and automatic voicemail to the telephone number we have on file for you. Notify you that one or more copyright owners have reported that they believe your account has been involved in possible copyright infringement activity.”

“Provide a link to information on how to check to see if file sharing software is operating on your computer (and how to remove it) and tell you where to find information on obtaining content legally.”

If more infringements are found after the first two alerts then the account holder is moved on to the acknowledgment phase where “popups” appear on-screen. Customers will have to acknowledge that they received the new alert and will be instructed to watch a video about the consequences of online piracy.

Alert 3 and 4

“Redirect your browser to a special web page where you can review and acknowledge receiving the alerts. Provide a short video about copyright law and the consequences of copyright infringement.”

“Require you to click on an “acknowledgement” button before you will be able to freely browse the Internet. Clicking the acknowledgement button does not require you to admit that you or anyone else actually engaged in any infringing activity, only that you have received the alert.”

If the infringements continue after the fourth alert the subscriber will move on to the mitigation phase. Here, the customer can either ask for a review by the American Arbitration Association or undergo a temporary speed reduction to 256kbps.

Alert 5 and 6

“Redirect your browser to a special web page where you will be given several options. You can: Agree to an immediate temporary (2 or 3 day) reduction in the speed of your Internet access service to 256kbps (a little faster than typical dial-up speed); Agree to the same temporary (2 or 3 day) speed reduction but delay it for a period of 14 days; or Ask for a review of the validity of your alerts by the American Arbitration Association.”

If more infringements are found after the sixth alert “nothing” will happen. The user will receive no more alerts and can continue using his or her Internet connection at full speed.

However – and this is not mentioned by Verizon – the MPAA and RIAA may obtain the IP-addresses of such repeat infringers in order to take legal action against them. While the ISPs will not voluntarily share the name and address linked to the IP-address, they can obtain a subpoena to demand this information from the provider.

The potential for copyright holders to use the alert system as solid evidence gathering for lawsuits remains one of the most problematic aspects of the six-strikes scheme.

Finally, TorrentFreak also confirmed that the alerts outlined above will also apply to business customers. This means that coffee shops and other small businesses will have to be very careful over who they allow on their company networks. It could mean the end of free WiFi in many places.

Aside from Verizon we previously received some details on the measures AT&T and Time Warner Cable will take.

Leaked AT&T documents showed that they will block users’ access to some of the most frequently-visited websites on the Internet, until they complete a copyright course. Time Warner Cable will temporarily interrupt people’s ability to browse the Internet.

It’s expected that the two remaining providers, Cablevison and Comcast, will take similar measures. None of the ISPs will permanently disconnect repeat infringers as part of the plan.

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

The Internet provider had ignored court orders and Malibu Media, Patrick Collins and Third Degree Films asked the court to hold Verizon in contempt and compel the company to respond to the subpoenas.

This week Verizon responded to the claims with a frontal attack.

Verizon is asking a Texas federal court to grant discovery so the ISP can expose how the “copyright trolls” in question operate. Verizon’s motion is short, but leaves very little to the imagination.

In its filing Verizon states that the copyright holders “pursue a scheme which, if not illegal, is at a minimum of a type to which the courts should not lend their powers and support.”

The provider has therefore decided to turn the tables. Instead of exposing the identities of their customers, they want to be granted discovery themselves so they can request sensitive information on the companies involved. An unusual request at this stage of a case, but needed because many of Verizon’s customers are unable to defend themselves.

“The circumstances are also unusual because the persons subject to potential abuse by the Plaintiffs’ approach are unlikely to be able, for financial reasons, personal reasons, or Plaintiffs’ tactical approach to those who do actively oppose them, to effectively oppose the Plaintiffs’ oppressive and unfair methods,” Verizon writes.

By exposing the tactics of these copyright holders, Verizon hopes the court can make an informed decision as to whether the alleged BitTorrent users should have their identities revealed. This exposé includes uncovering the tangled web of individuals behind these lawsuits, and the tactics copyright holders use to get defendants to hand over their money.

“Verizon intends, among other things, to seek discovery from the senior level managers of the Plaintiffs and from the persons affiliated with the Plaintiffs whose declarations have been used to support the Plaintiffs’ requests for discovery,” Verizon writes.

“Verizon further intends to seek discovery into the business model of Plaintiffs and whether the Plaintiffs are good faith publishers of the material they purportedly seek to protect as opposed to whether Plaintiffs’ business model is primarily profit from their aggressive and abusive copyright enforcement efforts,” they add.

The ISP concludes its request by equating the tactics of the copyright holders to schoolyard bullies who run away scared if their targets fight back. A seemingly fitting description as none of their cases have ever made it through a full trial.

“Plaintiffs’ tactics appear to be much like those of schoolyard bullies who push and shove until firm opposition is met when they shrink away. Plaintiffs, and those like them, have apparently avoided having to deal with these issues by not pursuing those who would raise these issues,” Verizon concludes.

From the filings it becomes clear that Verizon is determined to end the trolling tactics of the adult studios, and they’re not scared to invest money into the fight.

TorrentFreak talked to attorney Graham Syfert, who has a lot of experience with these mass-BitTorrent lawsuits, and he believes that this case could have a wide impact.

“If discovery is granted these companies will be subject to the same scrutiny as a Plaintiff in a trial, and those depositions and answers could be used in cases nationwide,” Syfert told us.

This means that if Verizon gets their way, and they uncover enough dirt, some of the most active copyright trolls may be put out of business. In any case, we can expect fireworks.

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

In many cases the person who pays for the account is not the person who shared the copyrighted material. However, this is the person who gets sued, something that can have all kinds of financial implications.

To shield their customers from this kind of outcome Verizon now objects to subpoenas granted by courts in these cases. Not in one case, but in dozens. One of the arguments cited by Verizon’s attorneys is that the requests breach the privacy rights of its customers.

“[The subpoena] seeks information that is protected from disclosure by third parties’ rights of privacy and protections guaranteed by the first amendment,” their counsel informed the copyright holders.

Verizon further cites arguments that have previously been successful in similar cases, including the notion that mass lawsuits are not proper as the defendants did not act in concert.

Three of the copyright holders, all makers of adult films, have had enough of Verizon’s refusals and have filed a lawsuit against the company at a federal court in Texas. Malibu Media, Patrick Collins and Third Degree Films ask the court to hold Verizon in contempt and compel Verizon to respond to the subpoenas.

“Verizon objects to the subpoenas on various grounds, all of which lack merit. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court overrule each of Verizon’s objections, compel immediate compliance with Plaintiffs’ subpoenas and hold Verizon in contempt for failing to obey the subpoenas,” they write.

Aside from countering Verizon’s arguments directly, the copyright holders claim that Verizon’s refusal to hand over customer details is in bad faith, as the ISP profits from the alleged copyright infringements.

The movie companies back up this claim by pointing to a study published last year, which concluded that large ISPs profit from BitTorrent at the expense of smaller ones.

“Verizon’s current Objections can only be seen as being asserted in bad faith, and with the expectation to continue to profit from BitTorrent infringement at the expense of other, lower-tier ISPs and the consuming public at large. There is seemingly no incentive for ISPs such as Verizon to aggressively identify infringers on their network,” they tell the court.

“Add to this the fact that Verizon and its cohorts enjoy virtual immunity from liability under the development of laws such as the DMCA, and this scenario presents multiple concerns of fairness and accountability.”

While it’s a novel argument, the movie studios omit to mention that Verizon is also one of the partners in the upcoming “six-strikes” scheme, which aims to decrease copyright infringements through BitTorrent.

The ISP previously told TorrentFreak that it sees more value in a system where users are warned and educated, as opposed to being sued in court.

“We believe this program offers the best approach to the problem of illegal file sharing and, importantly, is one that respects the privacy and rights of our subscribers. It also provides a mechanism for helping people to find many great sources of legal content,” Verizon told us.

The “six strikes” anti-piracy scheme, or copyright alerts system as it’s officially named, is expected to go live later this week. But since the adult film industry is not invited, mass-BitTorrent lawsuits are not going away anytime soon.

That said, the current case can make a huge impact according to Rob Cashman, a lawyer who represents many accused Does in these BitTorrent cases.

Cashman explains that if the ISP wins then copyright holders have no other way to identified the defendants, meaning that these and other Verizon defendants are off the hook.

“The hope and expectation on my end is that other ISPs will follow suit. This will be one more way we can shut down these trolling cases for good,” Cashman says.

“On the flip-side, if the judges grant the request to force the ISPs to comply with their subpoenas, then it will be “game on” for both of us. They will continue trying to extort money from the defendants, and attorneys such as myself and others will continue placing our “monkey wrenches” to break their operations,” Cashman adds.

Whatever happens, the case is going to be one to watch.

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

The parties agreed on a system through which subscribers are warned that their copyright infringements have been observed by rightsholders. After several warnings ISPs may then take a variety of repressive measures to punish the alleged infringers.

From leaked AT&T training documents we learned that the company will block users’ access to popular websites until they complete a copyright education course. However, none of the participating Internet providers have publicly commented on the measures they plan to take, until now.

During a panel discussion hosted by the New York Chapter of the Internet Society, Verizon and Time Warner Cable unveiled details of their plans.

Link Hoewing, Vice President of Internet and Technology Issues for Verizon, said his company will employ a three stage process. The first two alerts will result in a simple notification email informing the users that their connection has been flagged for copyright infringements.

After the second warning comes the acknowledgment phase in which a popup is delivered users. Once received subscribers are required to read and confirm, a process designed to ensure that they are aware of the unauthorized sharing that’s taking place via their account.

If the infringements continue punishments become a reality on the fifth and the sixth alerts. Hoewing said that these repeated infringers will have their Internet connections throttled resulting in significantly slower download speeds. The throttling is temporary and will be lifted after two or three days.

Fernando Laguarda, Time Warner Cable’s Vice President of External Affairs, said his company will take a slightly different approach. The notification and acknowledgment phases are fairly similar, but instead of reducing connection speeds they will restrict users’ Internet browsing by directing them to a landing page.

Laguarda did not explain in detail for how long users will be restricted or what websites they will be able to reach, if any.

CCI’s Executive Director Jill Lesser, who also participated in the panel, stressed that the main purpose of the alerts is to educate the public. The participating parties realize that determined individuals can circumvent the system by using a VPN or switching to other means of file-sharing that are not tracked under the agreement.

“Yes, there are ways around it, and yes there are other ways to pirate,” Lesser said, adding that these hardcore pirates are not the target of the system.

Finally, Lesser said that only large ISPs were invited to join the copyright alert system to make it easier to come to an agreement. However, now that everything is ready to be set in motion, the CCI is planning to invite other Internet providers.

Whether other providers will be eager to join remains to be seen. A Cox spokesperson previously told TorrentFreak that his company was invited but “decided not to participate for internal reasons.”

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

In recent years more than a quarter million alleged BitTorrent users have been sued in federal courts. One of the copyright holders participating in this activity is book publisher John Wiley & Sons, who are famous for their “For Dummies” series.

Wiley and others file mass-lawsuits against John Does who are only known by their IP-address. They then request a subpoena from the court to obtain the subscriber info connected to the IP-address, so they can contact the person in question with a request to settle the case in return for a sum of money.

A lucrative business, which can bring in millions of dollars, but also one that has been criticized heavily.

Earlier this month we reported that Verizon had refused to comply with a subpoena that was issued by a New York federal court. Among other reasons, the Internet provider doubted whether the subpoena would lead to the discovery of “relevant information.” In other words, Verizon suggested that the person who pays for the account might not be the infringer. A valid point, especially since another New York judge stated recently that an IP-address does not identify a person, only a connection.

Verizon also refused to hand over information in order to protect the privacy of its subscribers, which they feel is at stake in these ongoing mass-BitTorrent lawsuits. The company asserted that Wiley is seeking “information that is protected from disclosure by third parties’ rights of privacy and protections guaranteed by the First Amendment.”

In addition, Verizon noted that the book publisher is demanding the information for improper purposes, namely “to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.”

As expected, Wiley didn’t agree with the objections outlined above and asked the court to compel Verizon to comply with the subpoena. However, after a conference call between Wiley’s lawyer and the judge, this request was dropped. And that was not all. A recent letter to the court also reveals that Wiley has withdrawn the subpoenas it sent to Verizon.

“Given the telephone conference with Your Honor on May 14, 2012, we withdraw our subpoenas to Verizon as well as our motion to compel Verizon to respond to those subpoenas,” the letter reads.

Unfortunately, no further details are being made public, but it appears that Verizon successfully defended the privacy of the accused BitTorrent users. The above is great news for the many Verizon users who may end up in a similar position in the future. However, Verizon doesn’t seem to protest the subpoenas in all cases. In fact, earlier this month the company made a huge mistake as it handed over personal details of subscribers before it was allowed to.

That said, the ISP sees more value in a system where users are warned and educated, as opposed to “harassed.” Verizon confirmed this stance last week when the company informed TorrentFreak that they see the “six-strikes” warning model as the right solution for the piracy problem.

“We believe this program offers the best approach to the problem of illegal file sharing and, importantly, is one that respects the privacy and rights of our subscribers. It also provides a mechanism for helping people to find many great sources of legal content,” Verizon told us.

The “six strikes” piracy warning scheme is expected to be implemented later this year. This doesn’t mean that the mass-lawsuits will stop entirely, but it is apparent that Verizon does not intend to cooperate with these practices without putting up a fight.

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

By filing a mass-BitTorrent lawsuit the company became one of the many copyright holders who together have sued a quarter million people in the country since early 2010. In recent months, Wiley has continued to file yet more suits against alleged BitTorrent pirates.

Up until recently Wiley has enjoyed an easy ride in court. In several cases the New York federal court was quick to allow the book publisher to subpoena Internet providers for the personal details of account holders. With these details, Wiley can then approach the defendants and negotiate an out-of-court settlement.

But not if it’s up to Verizon.

While most Internet providers generally don’t object to a court-ordered subpoena, Verizon has refused to hand over the personal details of accused subscribers. One of the reasons given by Verizon is that Wiley is demanding the information for improper purposes, namely “to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.”

In addition, the Internet provider doubts whether the subpoena will lead to the discovery of “relevant information.” In other words, Verizon seems to doubt that the person who pays for the account is also the infringer.

This issue was also raised by New York Judge Gary Brown in another case last week, in which he concluded that an IP-address is not a person. In his order Brown argued that in mass-BitTorrent lawsuits it is simply unknown whether the person linked to the IP-address has anything to do with the alleged copyright infringements.

Besides the two points above Verizon makes five more objections, including concerns over privacy. The company asserts that Wiley is seeking “information that is protected from disclosure by third parties’ rights of privacy and protections guaranteed by the First Amendment.”

For its part, Wiley is not convinced by Verizon’s protest and has asked the court to compel Verizon to respond to the subpoenas. To discuss the issue, Judge Katherine Forrest has scheduled a telephone conference for early next week.

Verizon’s objection is noteworthy because the action is not borne merely out of self-interest. Previously Time Warner also objected to mass-BitTorrent subpoenas where they had to produce the details of thousands of subscribers, arguing that this process was too time consuming.

However, in this case the burden on the ISP is relatively low, as Wiley says it only asked for the details of 10 account holders for which Verizon would receive compensation of $45 each.

Should Judge Katherine Forrest agree with Verizon’s objections it would be a serious blow to Wiley’s ongoing litigation campaign against BitTorrent users in the Southern District of New York.

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

Although the proposal is far from perfect, we are even more surprised by the misplaced outrage towards Google. How can it be that thousands of reporters and activists claim that the Google / Verizon deal will kill Net Neutrality if there’s no such thing in the first place?

Next week marks the three year anniversary of the story that Comcast was preventing BitTorrent users from uploading content to others after they had finished downloading. Rightfully so, Comcast’s practices led to a thorough FCC investigation and the ISP was eventually punished for its interventions.

But Comcast was not the only one who play(ed)s foul.

Despite Net Neutrality being in the spotlight for nearly three years due to the Comcast debacle, nobody seemed to pay attention to the fact that wireless broadband providers such as Verizon and AT&T were completely banning BitTorrent traffic on their networks.

In the spring of 2007, months before Comcast’s BitTorrent blocking practices were revealed, we already reported that Verizon was not allowing any BitTorrent traffic on its wireless networks. In the years that followed the company slightly changed the wording of its Terms of Service, but up until today BitTorrent users are still not welcome.

Verizon isn’t the only wireless carrier with such a policy either. The Terms of Service at AT&T for example, includes the following section under the heading Prohibited and Permissible Uses.

While most common uses for Intranet browsing, email and intranet access are permitted by your data plan, there are certain uses that cause extreme network capacity issues and interference with the network and are therefore prohibited. Examples of prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) server devices or host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine-to-machine connections or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing.

That doesn’t sounds very neutral does it?

For years nobody gave a cent for Net Neutrality on wireless networks, but this all changed a few days ago when Google and Verizon presented their plans. The thousands of reports, calls for protests, petitions and random Google bashing that followed were mind-blowing to say the least.

Although we’re not backing the proposal, we can’t help but note that Google’s proposal is in essence very similar to the (widely praised) Net Neutrality regulations that were suggested a few month ago by the FCC. On several points it’s actually an improvement, as the EFF also noted.

Even the most troubling part of Google’s proposal – that wireless networks would be excluded for the time being – is not much different from what the FCC suggested. In fact, buried in their proposals the FCC also acknowledged that wireless networks needed special treatment.

“We seek comment on the application of the principles to different access platforms, including how, in what time frames or phases, and to what extent the principles should apply to non-wireline forms of Internet access,” the FCC wrote in their proposed rulemaking (pdf) a few months ago.

Despite this vagueness about how the rules would apply to wireless networks, the majority of the Net Neutrality proponents hailed the FCC proposal. Take this comment from Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press for example:

“After years of hard work, we are pleased that the FCC has begun this crucially important rulemaking on Network Neutrality. A well-crafted Net Neutrality rule can ensure that the open Internet continues to serve as a great force for economic innovation and democratic participation for all Americans.”

Then compare that the statement Free Press released a few hours ago, when it rallied support for a protest at Google’s offices.

“In the week since news of Google’s deal with Verizon broke, more than 300,000 people have signed letters calling on Google to abandon the proposal, which threatens to destroy Network Neutrality – the fundamental principle that keeps the Internet open and free from discrimination.”

Seriously, we don’t understand where all the hatred towards Google comes from. The proposal is not going to destroy Net Neutrality, simply because Net Neutrality doesn’t exist yet.

In our view, the proposal is a great step forward to Net Neutrality on wired networks, something that doesn’t yet exist. Of course it still leaves the door open for BitTorrent throttling, but so did the FCC proposal.

The reality is that the Internet would be better off with the rules put forward in the Google / Verizon proposal than with no rules at all. That said, wireless networks need to be neutral in the long run of course.

Whether running a lot of BitTorrent downloads on a Wireless network is wise thing at the moment is doubtful though. George Ou of the Digital Society told TorrentFreak that “a single BitTorrent user would ruin the experience on the entire cell tower. There are just too many random packets being flung into the air.”

I guess the take home message is that you can’t kill something that isn’t there. So, if all the people who are so outraged at Google’s proposal could also organize protests at the offices of Verizon and AT&T to demand the right to use BitTorrent on their wireless services, we’ll stop complaining.

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

Piratebay founder Fredrik Neij said to Svenska Dagbladet on Wednesday:

“If there is money left over, it will go to us who work at Pirate Bay as salaries”

This could mean trouble according to prosecutor HÃ¥kan Roswall

“It is going to be an entirely different penalty if it turns out they earn money through their work”

In the meanwhile big corporations like broadband provider Verizon are lining up to advertise their goods to the bandwidth craving pirates ;)

via 1 and 2

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