Despite opposition from ISPs and consumer rights groups who described the tactics as “extortion,” Howell decided in favor of the copyright holders. An extremely unfortunate precedent to say the least, and this is confirmed by lawyer Robert Cashman who represents several defendants in similar cases.

“I believe the judge is giving the plaintiff attorneys the benefit of the doubt on all accounts, which is unfortunate because she is turning a blind eye to the abuses defendants are suffering with threats and harassment while plaintiff attorneys attempt to scare them into a settlement,” Cashman told TorrentFreak.

The big question is why Judge Howell came to this conclusion. Although we can’t see inside her mind, looking at her career before she was appointed as a judge a few months ago may give us some insight.

Howell’s resume immediately reveals that she is no stranger to copyright law. As General Counsel of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary she helped with the drafting of several prominent intellectual property protection laws, including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Deterrence Act and the No Electronic Theft Act.

The above clearly indicates that Howell is familiar with protecting the interests of copyright holders, but there is more. Until 2009 she also held the position of Executive Managing Director and General Counsel at Stroz Friedberg, a consulting firm that specializes in the management of digital crimes.

Among other areas of expertise, Stroz Friedberg is very familiar with the technology required to hunt down file sharers. Next month the firm is hosting a lecture titled “The Power of Digital Forensics in Intellectual Property Cases” in which they explain how “specialized forensic processes” can help to find “infringing copies of protected music.”

It doesn’t take a genius to realize that Judge Howell’s former employee may directly benefit from her decision to allow the mass-infringement lawsuits to continue. And that’s not all.

In recent years Stroz Friedberg has lobbied extensively in Washington on behalf of the RIAA. This consulting job earned the company more than half a million dollars. And yes, one of the leading lobbyists on record was Beryl Howell, who was paid $415,000 between 2004 and 2008.

Although judges are deemed to be objective, the above is troubling information which at the least hints at a slight bias in judgement. This is fueled by the fact that less than a week after her investiture ceremony as a judge, Howell opened the door for copyright holders to send out settlements to tens of thousands of alleged file-sharers without first having evidence against them tested in court.

As a lobbyist there was only so much Howell could do, but as a U.S. District Court Judge she can really make a difference it seems.

In layman’s terms her ruling means that copyright holders can easily request the personal details of people who have allegedly downloaded copyrighted works on BitTorrent. With this decision in hand the copyright holders have all they need. After all, the intention of these lawsuits was never to take the defendants to court, but to send them settlement letters to resolve the issue for a few thousand dollars.

Whether this represents fair practice is not for us but a judge to decide – U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell in this case.

We’re no lawyers at TorrentFreak, but if we see the information as presented above we can’t help but feel that there might be a conflict of interest here. At the least, some might consider that spending years defending the rights of major copyright holders has the potential to slightly blur one’s objectivity.

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

The 5 minute segment focused on an MPAA funded study by a group called the RAND corporation. The study – which was widely criticized early last month – is back with a new coat of paint. This time though, it’s being broadcast to the movie-going British public with the appearance of solid fact, and has addressed none of the questions we brought up just after the study was released.

Perhaps the choice of interviewees might shed some light on ‘why?’ a bit better.

* Keiron Sharp – Director General, Federation Against Copyright Theft.
* John Woodward – CEO, UK Film Council.
* Gregory Treverton – Director of RAND, the study’s authors.
* Callum McDougall – Executive Producer for Quantum of Solace.

This selection seems to be a bit one sided to say the least. If you’re wondering what’s so special about the last name, it might be because you didn’t go to see that film at the cinema. Just before the film was played, a short advert voiced by Quantum star Daniel Craig, talked about how “piracy was costing people jobs”.

McDougall also gave a speech last winter to a UK copyright industry lobby group saying how the industry will fall “like a house of cards” if downloading continues at current levels. This same group, the Industry Trust for IP Awareness, tried to push much the same message on terrorism and piracy almost 5 years ago.

One of our readers was angered by the bias of the segment and wrote a complaint to the BBC. After a few weeks of waiting a reply came back from BBC Complaints, and it was none too satisfying.

Thank you for your e-mail regarding ‘Film 2009 with Jonathan Ross’ as broadcast on 31 March.

I note you felt the report on this programme about copyright theft wasn’t adequately balanced as it only featured interviews with people from the film industry. I appreciate you felt we allowed a distorted view of this issue to be portrayed and note you have strong views regarding this matter.

This report focused in on a legitimate problem for both the film industry and the authorities as they try to tackle what is an ever increasing and profitable criminal activity. We feel the report outlined the laws surrounding the issue of film piracy adequately and that the interviewees from the film industry were entirely appropriate people to comment on the problem.

Impartiality is the cornerstone of all our output, and we feel this report was fully balanced in it’s coverage of copyright theft. Nevertheless I appreciate our audience has a wide range of opinions and inevitably this means that not every viewer will agree with the content of every programme we broadcast. We know all our editorial decisions are subjective and we’d never expect our audience to agree with every decision we make.

With this in mind that I’d like to take this opportunity to assure you that I’ve recorded your comments, including that you believe this topic deserves a more in depth investigation, onto our audience log. This is an internal daily report of audience feedback which is circulated to many BBC staff including senior management, producers and channel controllers.

The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.

Thanks again for contacting us.

Regards

Liam Boyle
BBC Complaints

Of course, there’s also a fine piece of irony in this show. The preceding segment was about a film called ‘The Boat That Rocked‘, a film about a 60′s pirate radio station. The irony is that it’s written and directed by one Richard Curtis. The same Richard Curtis that last year co-signed a letter to The Times urging ISPs to stop piracy.

It seems it’s only ok to profit from piracy, if you’re making a film about it.

UPDATE: The video of the segment is now available.

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