As part of this partnership the ISPs have to store all warnings their customers receive. Opponents feared that this data could be used against these individuals in court, which is specifically permitted under the agreement.

“The Content Owner Representatives [MPAA / RIAA] or any other member of the Participating Content Owners Group may use such reports or data as the basis for seeking a Subscriber’s identity through a subpoena or order or other lawful process,” the agreement reads.

However, as it turns out, the first legal consequences aren’t a result of action taken by Hollywood or the major record labels. They come from the adult video publisher Malibu Media, a so-called copyright troll that has filed over 750 lawsuits against alleged infringers this year alone.

In their case against Kelley Tashiro, a middle-aged female nurse from Indianapolis, the company had trouble proving that an infringement actually took place. But instead of backing down, they put their money on the six-strikes warnings databases.

Malibu asked the court to order Comcast to release all data being held as part of the Copyright Alert System. While Malibu is not part of the program, this data may show that the Internet connection was used to share pirated content on more occasions.

“DMCA notices and six strike notices are relevant because these notices may prove a pattern of infringement or notice that infringement is occurring or both,” Malibu noted in its motion.

A copy of the recorded copyright infringements wasn’t enough for Malibu though, the company also asked for details of Tashiro’s bandwidth consumption, suggesting that this could indicate whether she is an infringer or not.

“Bandwidth usage is relevant because people who are heavy BitTorrent users use significantly more bandwidth than normal internet users,” the company’s sweeping generalization reads.

This week Indiana District Court Judge Mark Dinsmore granted Malibu’s motion, which means that Comcast will be ordered to share the requested evidence.

“Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff may serve a third party subpoena on Comcast and Comcast should comply with Plaintiff’s Subpoena Duces Tecum
for deposition as outlined in Plaintiff’s Motion,” the Judge writes.

Comcast has not yet responded to the order, but considering the sensitivity of the subject the Internet provider is expected to file an appeal.

Currently it’s not known whether Tashiro has ever received a copyright alert, but the RIAA, MPAA and other participants in the Copyright Alerts System will not be pleased with these latest developments.

The Center for Copyright Information, which oversees the program, has always emphasized that the program respects the privacy of Internet subscribers. Having it used against alleged downloaders by copyright holders that are not even part of the scheme is bad PR for them, to say the least.

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

A cornerstone of the system sees the major labels and movie studios sending notices of infringement to ISPs which they in turn forward to their subscribers. Records of these notices are then held in a database, which copyright holders in the six-strike scheme may subsequently use in legal action, if they feel that is appropriate.

“The Content Owner Representatives [MPAA / RIAA] or any other member of the Participating Content Owners Group may use such reports or data as the basis for seeking a Subscriber’s identity through a subpoena or order or other lawful process,” the agreement reads.

Trouble is, any data on file is at risk of being accessed by a third party if they can convince a judge they have good reason to obtain it. And that’s exactly what the largest filer of copyright complaints in the United States is now attempting to do.

Malibu Media is well-known as a filer of many lawsuits against alleged file-sharers. Indeed, earlier this week the company was featured in an article which confirmed its status as the most prolific filer of copyright lawsuits in the entire United States.

In a case which has been documented by FightCopyrightTrolls since its initial February 2013 filing, Malibu has been struggling to pin an infringement on Kelley Tashiro, a middle-aged female nurse from Indianapolis. Faced with an uphill battle, Malibu has now turned to Tashiro’s ISP, Comcast, to find out what information it holds on her.

Perhaps inevitably, Malibu is attempting to find out whether or not the IP address allocated to Tashiro has ever been subject to infringement allegations by other copyright holders. In addition to details of any DMCA notices forwarded, Malibu has asked a judge to order the release of data being held as part of the Copyright Alerts System.

“DMCA notices and six strike notices are relevant because these notices may prove a pattern of infringement or notice that infringement is occurring or both,” Malibu writes in its motion.

In an indication of just how desperate Malibu has become, the company also wants details of Tashiro’s bandwidth consumption, as if that somehow indicates whether she is an infringer or not.

“Bandwidth usage is relevant because people who are heavy BitTorrent users use significantly more bandwidth than normal internet users,” the company’s sweeping generalization reads.

In summary, Malibu points out to the court that without this and other items of information from Comcast they have no chance of winning the case, another indication of how flimsy IP address-only evidence is now being viewed.

Whether Comcast will comply or not remains to be seen. A similar case in April 2013 which demanded information from Verizon was subsequently dropped.

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

The anti-piracy measure is part of the “six strikes” Copyright Alert System, a partnership between five major ISPs and copyright holders. Those who are “caught” receive an email with details on the file that was allegedly shared, and customers who continue to pirate face a variety of mitigation measures, including bandwidth limitations.

Thus far the Center for Copyright Information (CCI), which oversees the program, has released no details on the volume of alerts sent out by ISPs. However, based on information from several sources we can now report that Comcast has sent out more than 625,000 warnings since the system went into effect.

The total 625,000 represents roughly 3% of all Comcast subscriber accounts and an average of nearly 2,000 emails per day. The number of affected customers is believed to be lower though, as some accounts have received multiple warnings.

The information further shows that the number of issued warnings increased slightly over the year. This makes sense as the ISPs wanted to start slow, not knowing what response to expect from subscribers.

At this point it is still unknown what percentage of Comcast customers have received multiple warnings, or how many reached the mitigation stage. The Internet providers are not allowed to share this data in public without permission from the majority of CCI’s Executive Committee.

TorrentFreak asked Comcast to verify our findings, but the Internet provider would not confirm nor deny that it sent out 625,000 alerts.

“We have no official, authorized information to announce at this time,” a Comcast spokesperson said.

The 625,000 number applies to Comcast alone, and the total number of copyright alerts is believed to run into the millions. Comcast is the ISP with the most BitTorrent users in the United States, so it’s expected that the other providers have sent out less warnings.

Part of Comcast’s 1st Copyright Alert

TorrentFreak also reached out to the CCI who did not comment on the number of alerts that were sent out by Comcast. The group told us, however, that they are happy with the progress made so far and are looking forward to the upcoming one-year anniversary of the launch of the Copyright Alert System.

“During this initial period, we have been pleased with the way the system is working and have, on a regular basis, been observing the system and reviewing its progress and effectiveness,” a CCI spokesperson told us.

For those who received warnings last February, the one year anniversary is good news. Under the Copyright Alerts System all “strikes” will expire and reset 12 months after the last alert was received.

The CCI told TF that they are still evaluating the system and will release more details about its scope and effectiveness in the months to come.

“We are in the process now of working with our partners and Advisory Board members to evaluate the first-year of the Copyright Alert System and anticipate sharing ­our observations as soon as they are complete.”

Besides the sheer volume of alerts, CCI will look at a variety of factors to determine the effectiveness of the program. This includes the proportion of subscribers of each ISP who ceased receiving alerts at each step, and the number of P2P Online Infringements copyright holders detected per month.

The number of warnings Comcast has sent to its customers thus far is significant. However, whether this has put a dent in local piracy rates has yet to be seen.

Last year we reported that instead of kicking their download habit, many people took measures to prevent being monitored. In addition, we observed that U.S. traffic to The Pirate Bay did not decline after the system was implemented.

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

The Comcast case was the first to ignite a broad discussion about Net Neutrality and the setup for FCC’s Open Internet Order which was released two years later.

The Open Internet Order prescribes that all traffic on the Internet should be treated equally, but allows ISPs to slow down or block traffic if it’s considered to be “reasonable network management.” For many Net Neutrality activists the rules didn’t go far enough, but it was something.

Today the Open Internet Order was decimated by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against the commission. The Court states that the FCC does not have the power to regulate how ISPs manage traffic on their networks.

“Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such. Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order.”

The Court didn’t throw out the entire Open Internet Order, and clarified that ISPs still have to disclose what kind of actions they take when “managing” traffic on their networks.

The ruling leaves the FCC with two options. It could appeal at the Supreme Court or it could ask Congress to give it the powers it wants and/or needs. For now, however, ISPs are free to discriminate between different traffic types, and block certain sites or content.

This could mean, for example, that certain types of traffic get priority over others, or that certain sites or services could be downgraded or blocked.

The reasoning of the D.C. Court of Appeals is similar to an order it issued in 2010. At the time it overruled the FCC’s decision to sanction Comcast for unfair treatment of BitTorrent users, arguing that the commission doesn’t have the authority to enforce net neutrality.

In a response to the bad news FCC Chairman Thomas Wheeler said that his organization is considering an appeal.

“We will consider all available options, including those for appeal, to ensure that these networks on which the Internet depends continue to provide a free and open platform for innovation and expression, and operate in the interest of all Americans,” Wheeler noted.

Many Open Internet advocates are unhappy with today’s decision as well.

“We’re disappointed that the court came to this conclusion. Its ruling means that Internet users will be pitted against the biggest phone and cable companies — and in the absence of any oversight, these companies can now block and discriminate against their customers’ communications at will,” Free Press President and CEO Craig Aaron notes.

“The compromised Open Internet Order struck down today left much to be desired, but it was a step toward maintaining Internet users’ freedom to go where they wanted, when they wanted, and communicate freely online,” he adds.

For BitTorrent users specifically not much is expected to change in the short-term, not even for Comcast subscribers. The Internet provider told TorrentFreak that it will continue to comply with the FCC’s Open Internet Order for at least six more years.

“Comcast has consistently supported the Commission’s Open Internet Order as an appropriate balance of protection of consumer interests while not interfering with companies’ network management and engineering decisions,” a Comcast spokesperson said.

This promise to keep the Internet “neutral” was part of the NBCUniversal Transaction Order, which is valid until 2020.

“We remain comfortable with that commitment because we have not – and will not – block our customers’ ability to access lawful Internet content, applications, or services. Comcast’s customers want an open and vibrant Internet, and we are absolutely committed to deliver that experience,” the company added.

So no BitTorrent blocking for now from Comcast, although we have to note that throttling would still be an option as long as it’s part of standard network management procedure, or targeted at unauthorized transfers.

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

Some copyright holders prefer to do it through innovation, while others prefer educational messages, warnings or even lawsuits. Another group is aiming to generate revenue by obtaining lots of small cash settlements.

Rightscorp is one of the companies that facilitates these settlement demands. The company scours BitTorrent networks for people who download titles owned by the copyright holders they work for, and then approaches these alleged pirates via their Internet providers.

The company went public last month and works with prominent partners including Warner Bros. and BMI. On behalf of these clients Rightscorp usually asks for $10 or $20 per infringed title, demands that are concealed in DMCA notices so they can bypass the courts.

Under the DMCA Internet providers are obliged to forward copyright infringement notices to their customers, so with this strategy the company can contact the alleged pirates without knowing who they are.

At least, that’s the theory.

The problem is that Rightscorp’s entire business model relies on the willingness of the Internet providers to forward their full settlement requests. To make sure this happens the company specifically adds the following line on top of each DMCA notice.

**NOTE TO ISP: PLEASE FORWARD THE ENTIRE NOTICE**

Unfortunately for the anti-piracy outfit, not all ISPs are doing that.

TorrentFreak looked into the matter and we found that Comcast, the largest ISP in the United States, strips out all the threatening language and references to the proposed settlement. Instead, it only lists the infringement details including the source, file-name and a timestamp.

A copy of a Rightscorp warning forwarded by Comcast is pasted at the bottom of the article.

One of the reasons why Comcast truncates the DMCA notices could be to protect its customers from false accusations. However, when we contacted them the ISP declined to comment on the matter.

We also shared our findings with Rightscorp, who said that they were indeed protecting the rights of the artist in the notice we forwarded, but couldn’t confirm that it was coming from them. Despite sending over additional notices, the company said it would need more details to warrant a comment in public.

It is worth noting that Comcast is truncating all DMCA notices and not just the Rightscorp ones. This isn’t a big problem for copyright holders who send traditional takedown notices, but in Rightscorp’s case it is killing the company’s business model.

Investors are not going to be pleased to hear that there’s no revenue coming from the country’s largest ISP, and with increasing complaints from customers, there is a significant risk that other ISPs will follow Comcast’s lead.

If that happens, Rightscorp’s entire business model will be defunct.

An example of a Rightscorp DMCA notice processed by Comcast is pasted below. Here is a full notice forwarded by another ISP for comparison, complete with threatening language and a settlement offer.

—-

Dear Comcast High-Speed Internet Subscriber:

Comcast has received a notification by a copyright owner, or its authorized agent, reporting an alleged infringement of one or more copyrighted works made on or over Comcast’s High-Speed Internet service (the ‘Service’). The copyright owner has identified the Internet Protocol (‘IP’) address associated with your Service account at the time as the source of the infringing works. The works identified by the copyright owner in its notification are listed below. Comcast reminds you that use of the Service (or any part of the Service) in any manner that constitutes an infringement of any copyrighted work is a violation of Comcast’s Acceptable Use Policy and may result in the suspension or termination of your Service account.

If you have any questions regarding this notice, you may direct them to Comcast in writing by sending a letter or e-mail to:

Comcast Customer Security Assurance
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
1800 Bishops Gate Blvd., 3rd Floor East Wing
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 U.S.A.
Phone: (888) 565-4329
Fax: (856) 324-2940

For more information regarding Comcast’s copyright infringement policy, procedures, and contact information, please read our Acceptable Use Policy by clicking on the Terms of Service link at http://www.comcast.net.

Sincerely,
Comcast Customer Security Assurance

Copyright work(s) identified in the notification of claimed infringement:

Infringement Source: Torrent
Timestamp: 2013-xx-xx xx:xx:1x.x GMT
Infringers IP Address: xxx.x.xxx.xxx
Infringers Port: xxxxx
Listing of infringement(s) (Title/Filename/Timestamp/Hash): This Years Love | 08 This Years Love.mp3 | 2013-xx-xx xx:xx:xx.x | SHA1

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

When the provider receives DMCA notices it is required to forward them to the customers in question, and if the copyright holder is part of the six-strikes Copyright Alert System the notice results in an official ‘strike’.

The above is nothing new, but the situation gets more complex when it comes to the effects these DMCA notices have on the long term. Although those participating in the six-strikes system have made it very clear that no accounts will be terminated, outside the program it is certainly an option.

TorrentFreak has received information suggesting that Comcast is actively terminating the accounts of repeat infringers under certain circumstances, without a court order. When we asked the ISP about their policy with regard to repeat copyright infringers, this was confirmed.

“Termination is a requirement of the DMCA and applies to all ISPs, not just Comcast, as a consequence of repeated and egregious copyright infringement,” a Comcast spokesperson told TorrentFreak.

Comcast is indeed correct in stating that Internet providers have to act against repeat infringers. The DMCA requires ISPs to “… adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers.”

However, legal experts and Internet providers interpret the term “repeat infringer” differently. For example, AT&T previously said that it would never terminate accounts of customers without a court order, arguing that only a court can decide what constitutes a repeat infringement.

Comcast, however, informs TorrentFreak that a court order is certainly not required under the DMCA and that the company’s interpretation of the law is appropriate.

Comcast is not the only company to take this stance. Verizon’s terms of service also suggest that account termination is an option, without due process. Similar policies are also applied by other service providers, such as YouTube for example. Needless to say, terminating an Internet connection will have more impact than shutting down a YouTube account.

While the DMCA has been in place for more than a decade, the launch of the Copyright Alert System puts the repeat infringer issue in a new light. Previously, ISPs were not obliged to keep logs of copyright infringement notices for a set period of time, but under the new system they are.

In addition, as part of the alert system ISPs are required to track the number of notices “repeat infringers” receive. This means that providers are keeping a database of the most persistent pirates, which outside of the CAS can lead to terminations in Comcast’s case.

Comcast assured TorrentFreak that “termination of a customer’s Internet service is not part of the Copyright Alert System,” but didn’t deny that these notices can eventually lead to account terminations under the ISP’s acceptable use policy.

Under what circumstances this would take place, and how Comcast defines “repeated and egregious” copyright infringement, remains unknown for now.

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

Last week we wrote a news article based on public court records, revealing that Prenda Law has been involved in operating a honeypot in order to lure Internet users into downloading copyrighted material.

This revelation came to light after Comcast returned a subpoena linking the IP-address of Pirate Bay uploader “Sharkmp4″ to the infamous law firm, and has since been published by several other news outlets since we broke the news.

It was an article like any other, we thought, but on Monday we learned that Comcast was not happy with our coverage. Through the brand protection company Cyveillance they sent a cease and desist letter for an alleged copyright infringement, demanding that we take the article offline, or face legal action.

The threats are clear. If we fail to comply with the takedown notice within five days Comcast will file a lawsuit seeking immediate injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs of the suit.

Unfortunately, the email above provides no indication of what we have done wrong. It simply states that we infringed on Comcast’s copyrights without explaining what the actual infringement entails.

To find out more we contacted Cyveillance with a request for additional information. In a quick response, the company informed us that the copy of the subpoena (also available on the Internet archive) response was the problem.

“The thing that we would like you to remove from you post is the copy of the subpoena form that contains Comcast subscriber’s information, The rest of the post can stay,” we were told.

While the response is clear, it still doesn’t explain what the actual infringement is. According to our knowledge court records are public domain and can be freely used by reporters, especially when they are the center of a news piece.

When we pointed this out to Cyveillance the company suddenly informed us that Comcast told them to “hold off on working on the removal of the post in question.” Baffled by the situation, and unclear how to proceed we asked for further details. However, everything went silent and several follow-up emails sent by us since Monday afternoon have gone unanswered.

Meanwhile, the situation further deteriorated when we learned that our hosting provider LeaseWeb received the same cease and desist notice. LeaseWeb alerted us to this problem on Tuesday and stated that our IP-address would be blocked if the issue was not resolved within 24 hours.

We contacted Cyveillance and alerted them to this issue, but again, no response.

TorrentFreak has consulted several legal experts who agree that we’ve done nothing wrong here. Also, Comcast has not asked the court to seal the filing in question and it can still be accessed through the court records.

While we generally refrain from writing about Internal issues, we believe this copyright claim is a matter of interest and one the public should be aware of. We hope that Comcast can clarify its stance eventually, and that our server remains online in the meantime.

Update 7pm CET: A Comcast spokesperson responded to an inquiry we sent to the company’s lawyers:

“[I] am replying to let you know that the cease and desist was sent in error, and you may disregard it. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.”

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

The U.S. Internet provider is working on a trial of the new technology in collaboration with major movie and TV-studios and is hoping to get other ISPs on board as well, Variety reports.

While details are scarce at this point, sources say that the new system will monitor subscriber accounts for unauthorized downloads. When a pirated download is spotted, users will receive a popup notification referring them to legal alternatives.

The legal alternatives could be Comcast’s own offerings, but also third-party services such as Amazon and Netflix.

There is currently no indication that unauthorized downloads will be stopped, although this is a possibility. Just last month we reported on a patent obtained by AT&T which would allow for such an elaborate anti-piracy system.

An alternative option would be for a third-party company to monitor unauthorized downloads. This is possible and would not require active monitoring from the Internet provider. However, this would mean that the new plan can only target peer-to-peer networks and not central file-hosting sites or streaming services.

If Comcast goes for the latter then the new plan will be an extension of the six-strikes anti-piracy system that launched in February. The six-strikes scheme, a collaboration between the MPAA, RIAA and five major Internet providers, sends alerts to subscribers who are caught sharing copyrighted works online and ultimately punishes repeat offenders.

The new “pirate conversion” scheme will not replace the current six-strikes system, which recently received praise from the Obama administration.

The idea of referring “pirates” to legitimate content is not new. Several file-hosting services, including Mediafire, are already scanning the publicly shared files of their users to replace them with “buy now” links when they are distributed without permission.

The news of Comcast’s plan nevertheless comes as surprise for multiple reasons. For one, TorrentFreak has learned from sources close to the Copyright Alert System that Internet providers have become very reluctant to engage in anti-piracy measures following the SOPA revolt last year. This was one of the main reason why the six-strikes plan was delayed for more than a year.

Secondly, during a time where the public is growing increasingly skeptical of online surveillance, the new anti-piracy plan is bound to result in a healthy backlash. That said, there is also a lot to gain for Comcast, which owns NBC Universal and is one of the largest cable television providers.

If Comcast goes ahead with these plans it will be interesting to see who else will participate and how the technology will work. TorrentFreak has sent out some inquiries to learn more about Comcast’s plans and we hope to provide an update in due course.

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

One of the things that stood out most was the lack of information released through official channels.

On launch day the Center for Copyright Information, who are in charge of the operation, were unable to tell us what measures the ISPs have in store for persistent pirates and none of the providers listed any detailed information on their websites.

Luckily, more and more details were published in the days that followed, but many questions remained.

For example, several Comcast consumers complained that the pop-up notification shown in the help section doesn’t include any details on the allegedly infringed files. How can people take action if they don’t know what they did wrong, people wondered.

This and other questions could have easily been avoided by clearly explaining how the “copyright alerts” are sent and what information people can expect.

TorrentFreak talked to one of the first recipients of a copyright alert and he tells us that in addition to the browser notification, he also received an email and a voice-mail message. The email (see below) briefly explains why the customer received this alert and also lists the alleged unauthorized download. The voice-mail carries the same information.

As expected the copyright alert is carefully worded. Comcast makes it clear that the notice comes from a copyright holder, to avoid the suggestion that they might be monitoring users’ Internet connections.

“A copyright owner has sent Comcast a notice claiming your Internet service from Comcast was used to copy or share copyrighted content like a movie, television program or song improperly,” the email starts.

The email further points out where people can download movies and music legitimately, and notes that the copyright alerts are supposed to educate consumers.

Interestingly, the email doesn’t inform recipients that after four warnings they will be unable to browse the Internet. Nor is it mentioned that the notice can be appealed. Subscribers will have to learn about the looming browser hijack and other details in the Comcast help section.

The infringement details at the bottom of the email are pretty much identical to the ones that were already sent out under the DMCA. It lists the title of the pirated file, a time-stamp, the protocol and IP-address.

While it’s helpful to see what accused downloaders can expect, the email doesn’t provide any new details. Again, what stands out is the lack of information, especially with regard to the option to appeal a “strike”.

The full email Comcast sent for their first strike is shown below. Have you received one yourself? If so, please let us know.

—

CENTER FOR COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

Alert #1: Potentially Improper Use of Copyrighted Material

Incident Number: 65XX
Report Date/Time: Tuesday, 26-Feb-2013, XX:XX:XX AM EST

NAME
ADDRESS
CITY, STATE

Dear Internet Subscriber:

A copyright owner has sent Comcast a notice claiming your Internet service from Comcast was used to copy or share copyrighted content like a movie, television program or song improperly. The content owner who sent us the notice has determined that Comcast is your Internet service provider and provided us with the information summarized below. Comcast used this information to identify your Internet account as the one referenced in the copyright owner’s notice. We also used this information to display the in-browser notification you may have seen on your computer and to send you this e-mail. You can view the notice Comcast received by going to Users and Preferences in MyAccount at http://customer.comcast.com/ and logging in with your primary account holder credentials. Comcast has not provided your name and address or other identifying information to the copyright owner as part of this notice and alert process.

Major Internet Service Providers, record labels and movie and TV studios have joined the non-profit Center for Copyright Information at www.copyrightinformation.org to let consumers like you know when copyrighted content might have been improperly copied or shared. The goal of this effort is to help educate consumers about the proper use of copyrighted content and provide assistance in identifying possible sources or causes of any activity that led to this Copyright Alert. Comcast encourages you to find and enjoy content online from the many legitimate sources available. For a better way to find Movies, TV, and Music please visit http://www.copyrightinformation.org/a-better-way-to-find-movies-tv-music. To learn more about these Alerts from Comcast, please visit http://www.comcast.com/copyrightalerts.

For more information please review Comcast’s Acceptable Use Policy and Terms of Service.

Sincerely,

Comcast Customer Security Assurance

Copyrighted work(s) identified in the notification from the Center for Copyright Information:

Infringing Work:TAKE CARE
Filename:Drake – Take Care (Deluxe Version)
Infringement Date:Tue Feb 26 XX:XX:XX EST 2013
Infringement Type:null
Infringement Method:BITTORRENT
IP Address:50.147.XXX.XXX
Reporting Party:antipiracy2@riaa.com
Reporting Party Case ID:222716XXXXX
Reporting Party FAQ:null

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. Most of the lawsuits are initiated by adult entertainment companies, but mainstream movie studios and book publisher John Wiley and Sons have also joined in.

These copyright holders request a subpoena from the court to order ISPs to identify the alleged BitTorrent users through an IP-address. They then contact the account holder with a request to settle the case in return for a sum of money.

Initially Comcast complied with these subpoenas, but an ongoing battle in the Illinois District Court shows that the company changed its tune recently.

Instead of handing over subscriber info, Comcast asked the court to quash the subpoenas. Among other things, the ISP argued that the court doesn’t have jurisdiction over all defendants, because many don’t live in the district in which they are being sued. The company also argues that the copyright holders have no grounds to join this many defendants in one lawsuit.

The real kicker, however, comes with the third argument. Here, Comcast accuses the copyright holders of a copyright shakedown, exploiting the court to coerce defendants into paying settlements.

“Plaintiffs should not be allowed to profit from unfair litigation tactics whereby they use the offices of the Court as an inexpensive means to gain Doe defendants’ personal information and coerce ‘settlements’ from them,” Comcast’s lawyers write.

“It is evident in these cases – and the multitude of cases filed by plaintiffs and other pornographers represented by their counsel – that plaintiffs have no interest in actually litigating their claims against the Doe defendants, but simply seek to use the Court and its subpoena powers to obtain sufficient information to shake down the Doe defendants.”

Comcast cites several previous cases to back up their claims and points out that federal rules require courts to deny discovery “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.”

The attorney for adult publisher AF HOLDINGS is furious at Comcast’s refusal to comply. He asks the court to disregard the ISP’s arguments entirely, and accuses Comcast of denying copyright holders the opportunity to protect their works.

“Comcast’s delay in objecting to the Plaintiffs’ subpoenas is part of a wider campaign to deny and delay the Plaintiffs’, and other similar copyright holders’, ability to protect their copyrighted works. Comcast routinely objects to subpoenas issued to it by producers of adult content,” AF HOLDINGS’writes.

“Even after courts regularly order Comcast to comply with the subpoenas, Comcast fights tooth and nail to resist complying.”

The case is now in the hands of Judge Gary Feinerman, who has to decide whether Comcast has to hand over the subscriber data after all, or whether the subpoenas should be destroyed.

Whatever the outcome, Comcast’s protest is part of a growing trend in which Internet providers object to handing over subscriber data in mass-BitTorrent cases. Previously, Verizon did the same, successfully arguing that it has an obligation to protect the privacy of its customers.

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