As part of their $80 million settlement agreement with the movie studios, the file-hosting service also let the counter-suit over Warner Bros. alleged DMCA-abuse go.

This meant that the true workings of Warner Bros. takedown systems remained secret, since many of the court filings were heavily redacted. Arguing that the public has the right to know how Warner operated, the Electronic Frontier Foundation therefore asked the court to unseal the records.

Warner Bros. objected to this request, arguing that the effectiveness of their anti-piracy technology would be undermined by a public disclosure. However, two weeks ago U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams ordered that it’s in the public interest to unseal the information.

The first set of unredacted documents were published by Warner Bros. yesterday evening. While it’s only a fraction of all sealed material, we can now see what the movie studio was so eager to keep out of the public eye.

Most of the unsealed information deals with Warner’s automated DMCA takedown tools. In the court filings these are described as “robots” which are programmed to mimic human behavior.

“Warner uses a system of computer programs known as ‘robots’ to help search link sites. for links to infringing copies of its content. These programmable robots are highly sophisticated and can effectively mimic the search a human would conduct, except faster,” Warner explains.

This isn’t a big surprise, but Warner clearly preferred to keep its automated takedown tools out of the public domain.

The unsealed information further shows that the script in question searches 200 hand-picked link sites for specific keywords. A takedown notice then goes out to the source site of this link. The actual content was never downloaded and reviewed, nor were the titles checked to see if Warner actually owned the content in question.

“Its search process relied on computer automation to execute programs and did not involve human review of the file titles, page names or other overt characteristics before issuing a takedown notice,” an unredacted court order reads.

“And because the files were not reviewed, neither Warner’s robots nor its employees made a determination whether there were legal uses for the files.”

Despite revealing details of its “robots”, Warner still redacts how many employees its anti-piracy division employs. Unfortunately for them they forgot to black out one reference. According to an unredacted court order Warner employed seven people in its anti-piracy division at the time.

All in all it appears that most of the redactions revealed up until now were meant to keep the anti-piracy operations shrouded in mystery. There is not much that can actually hurt the company’s anti-piracy efforts.

While it’s now clear that Warner’s DMCA takedowns were highly automated, there is still a lot more information to unseal. Many questions about specific errors also remain unanswered, including the fact that the studio intentionally targeted the open source JDownloader software.

Whether future revelations will lift more of the veil will become apparent in the months to come.

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

Hotfile alleged that after giving Warner access to its systems, the studio removed hundreds of files that weren’t theirs, including games demos and Open Source software.

The case was poised to reveal how Warner Bros. anti-piracy system works and what mistakes were made by the movie studio. But last November, a few weeks before the trial was due to begin, the case was closed as part of a settlement between Hotfile and the MPAA.

The decision was a disappointment to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) who asked the court to unseal documents regarding Warner’s alleged abuse. According to the group, the public has the right to know what mistakes Warner made.

Warner Bros. objected to this request, arguing that the effectiveness of their anti-piracy technology would be undermined by a public disclosure. The movie studio asked the Court to permanently seal the records, but during an oral hearing this week U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams denied this request.

The Judge ordered Warner Bros. to hand over some of the information within ten days, and come up with a schedule for the release of all relevant documents. According to Judge Williams the public has the right to see how Warner Bros. handles DMCA takedown requests.

The EFF is happy with the ruling, and says it will help legislators to refine and improve the current DMCA process. This year both the Patent and Trademark Office and the U.S. House Judiciary Committee have looked into possible changes to the current process.

“More information about how the DMCA process has been abused – particularly through automated takedown systems with inadequate human review – will help us improve it, and hold people responsible when they use this powerful tool of censorship abusively or without caution,” EFF’s Mitch Stoltz says in a comment.

“The sealed documents from the Hotfile case will help,” he adds.

While it’s too late for Hotfile, it is definitely valuable to see what how Warner Bros. made its mistakes and how their piracy takedown technology is set up.

“We’re pleased that Judge Williams preserved the public’s right to open court proceedings here, and we are looking forward to a close analysis of the Warner documents when they are released,” Stoltz concludes.

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

As with all music that’s performed in public, the bar owners are required to pay the royalties, even if there are just handful of listeners present.

Royalty collection agencies take this obligation very seriously and drive around the country visiting local bars and pubs to check whether they obey the law. Those who don’t usually get a bill in the mailbox, and if they refuse to pay up it gets worse.

Every year hundreds of small establishments are sued by copyright holders, often with help from performing rights organizations ASCAP and BMI. This week, Giacomo Jacks, a restaurant/bar from Amityville, New York, became a target.

The bar is being sued by Warner Bros. and Pure Songs for playing two songs without permission back in February. As they failed to secure the rights, Giacomo Jacks now faces a maximum of $60,000 in damages.

While these lawsuits are fairly common, the song over which Warner Bros is suing stands out immediately, as it’s more than 80 years old.

The song in question is the classic love song “I Only Have Eyes for You,” written by Harry Warren and lyricist Al Dubin and used in Warner Bros’ 1934 movie Dames. Since then it has been covered dozens of times, including the well-known Flamingos version.

In the lawsuit Warner Bros. claims to have been severely harmed by the public performance in the Amityville bar, for which it demands proper compensation. Since the actual damage can’t be calculated they ask for up to $30,000 per infringement.

“The said wrongful acts of the Defendants have caused and are causing great injury to the Plaintiffs, which damage cannot be accurately computed, and unless this Court restrains the Defendants from the further commission of said acts, said Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury,” the complaint (pdf) reads.

While Warner Bros. appear to be on sound legal ground (the song’s copyright only expires after 95 years) suing a small local business over a 80-year old song is not the best PR. That said, considering previous cases that dealt with the same issue, Giacomo Jacks will most likely lose the case or end up paying a hefty settlement fee.

Meanwhile, various unauthorized copies of the track are played hundreds of thousands of times on YouTube and elsewhere.

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

Last month the digital rights group asked a Florida federal court to unseal the filings Warner submitted in its now-settled DMCA abuse case against Hotfile.

EFF argued that the public has the right to know what mistakes Warner made. Knowing how Warner Bros’ anti-piracy system works will be instrumental in discussing the effectiveness of the DMCA takedown procedure and similar measures.

This week Warner opposed the EFF’s request. The movie studio fears that by exposing the sealed documents pirates will obtain an unfair advantage. According to David Kaplan, Warner’s Senior Vice President of Anti-Piracy operations, the information “would give pirates multiple routes for evading detection and copyright enforcement.”

“Persons familiar with Warner’s methods and strategies for identifying unauthorized Warner content online could infringe without fear of detection if they knew how the detection worked,” Kaplan informed the court.

The above is intriguing, as it suggests that there are ways to bypass Warner’s anti-piracy systems. While this may be as simple as using anonymizer tools, the studio clearly doesn’t want the public to know. The opposition filings themselves are heavily redacted, but Warner warns the court that exposing their secrets could allow more “criminals” to avoid justice.

The movie studio asks the court to keep the documents under seal, and accuses EFF of having a secret agenda. Warner believes that the digital rights group is not so much interested in serving the public good, and suggests that the EFF mostly wants to use the information to their own advantage.

“Although EFF claims that this unsealing would serve the ‘public interest,’ EFF’s motion is a thinly-veiled effort to gain access to Warner’s confidential information for EFF’s own tactical advantage in private litigation that EFF regularly brings against copyright owners to challenge their use of takedown systems,” Warner writes.

In EFF’s case, the public interest may of course be aligned with the interests of the group itself. However, the Hollywood studios believe that EFF is mainly interested in scandalizing.

“Plaintiffs’ concern that EFF’s true intentions are to exploit the sealed information in order to ‘promote scandal’ regarding Warner and other copyright owners is fully justified, and tips the balance even further toward continued sealing of the designated information,” Warner informs the court.

According to Warner, the EFF’s reasoning doesn’t trump their right to protect their anti-piracy secrets. This is not to avoid “embarrassment” as EFF suggests, but to prevent pirates from outsmarting them. If the sealed documents were exposed, this could severely damage Warner’s operation, they claim.

“As Plaintiffs have explained, this detailed information could be used by infringers to evade Warner’s copyright enforcement efforts. That such disclosure would cause significant harm to Warner’s copyright enforcement efforts is beyond serious dispute,” Warner stresses.

It’s now up to the court to decide whose interests weigh stronger. If Judge Kathleen Williams decides to unseal the documents, it will be interesting to see what Warner is so afraid of.

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

Hotfile alleged that after giving Warner access to its systems, the studio removed hundreds of files that weren’t theirs, including games demos and Open Source software.

In a response, Warner Bros. admitted the accusations. However, the movie studio argued that they were not to blame because a computer made the mistakes, not a person. As a result, the false takedown requests were not “deliberate lies.”

Warner Bros. asked the court for summary judgment in its favor but Florida District Court Judge Kathleen Williams eventually decided to let the issue be heard before a jury, stating that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that Warner intentionally took down files it didn’t own.

With instances of automated abuse becoming more frequent in recent years the case promised to be crucial. But last November, a few weeks before the trial was due to begin, it was closed as part of a settlement between Hotfile and the MPAA.

The decision was a disappointment to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) who have now asked the court to unseal documents regarding Warner’s alleged abuse. According to the group, the public has the right to know what mistakes Warner made.

“Judge Williams’ decision was encouraging, but mysterious – we don’t get to see evidence of how Warner’s system works and which of its improper DMCA takedown notices gave rise to liability. So we know that Warner may have crossed a line, but not how or why,” EFF notes.

EFF’s interest in the matter is heightened because Congress and the Patent and Trademark Office have asked the public for input on the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown procedure. Details about Warner’s alleged abuse can help to shape these discussions, the group explains.

“Without seeing the facts that went into Judge WIlliams’s decision, it doesn’t help people design takedown systems that comply with the law, and it doesn’t help anyone make informed arguments about the DMCA when Congress takes it up,” EFF says.

According to EFF, public interest trumps Warner’s motivations to keep the court documents under seal. In fact, EFF believes that one of Warner’s main reasons not to disclose the details is to avoid embarrassment.

“There are indications that Warner simply seeks to avoid embarrassment that might follow from public disclosure of abusive practices that the Court’s summary judgment order strongly suggest were taking place. Avoiding embarrassment of a corporate litigant is not a legitimate reason for denying the public its right of access,” EFF tells Judge Williams.

The EFF is convinced that some copyright holders are abusing the DMCA to censor free speech. If this is the case with Warner, then lawmakers should know about it, so these violations can be stopped in the future.

“Lawmakers need to hear about how well the system is actually working, and whether it protects Internet users against having their speech curtailed by takedown-bots or overzealous and poorly trained reviewers.”

“Actual data about major DMCA users like Warner is vital,” EFF concludes.

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

As evidenced by Google’s Transparency Report the companies behind movies, TV shows and music are desperately trying to do something about that. Many millions of DMCA takedown notices are sent every single week in the hope that by making content at least marginally harder to find, consumers might choose to purchase rather than pirate.

What goes on behind the closed doors of the anti-piracy outfits involved is largely a secret, but for one lucky individual the curtain could soon be lifted.

Warner Bros., a company that generated revenues of $12 billion in 2012, is looking for someone to join their Content Protection and Analytics department. The unit’s stated objective is to protect Warner’s “…film, TV and games content against piracy throughout the entire value chain, with a primary focus on internet piracy in all its forms.”

The entertainment giant is looking for a Systems Manager, a degree-level IT professional with software development experience and a knowledge of SQL, PHP, Kapow, javascript and python. In addition to managing a small team the successful candidate will optimize “WB SHIELD”, Warner’s anti-piracy system focused on discovering and taking down unauthorized content.

To date, Warner Bros. Entertainment has sent around 1.9 million takedowns to Google, although many were handled by outside vendors. Google’s reports accredit around 900,000 directly to Warner, a not inconsiderable amount for a single company.

Other parts of the job include managing SHIELD failures and contributing to the building and maintenance of the company’s infringement scanning and take-down robots.

While Warner sends plenty of notices for content on BitTorrent networks, it’s interesting that the company is also looking to improve its capabilities elsewhere. The person landing the job will be required to work against protection mechanisms being employed by pirates by “developing solutions for dealing with link encryption, captchas and FLASH.”

It’s often suggested that anti-piracy companies tend to focus their protection strategies on “hot” content, meaning that older titles receive less attention. That train of thought is supported somewhat by the requirement that Warner’s new anti-piracy employee will be responsible for ensuring that the company’s “priority film, TV and game titles are covered within SHIELD.”

Finally, Warner’s new employee will be required to conduct analysis of rogue sites and hosting platforms and coordinate that work with other members of the company’s anti-piracy team.

Overall this sounds like a job ideally matched to a tech-savvy former pirate, but whether the company will be keen to employ a poacher-turned-gamekeeper is another question. If they did, however, they definitely would not be the first.

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

The file-hoster alleged that after giving Warner access to its systems the studio wrongfully took down hundreds of files including demos and Open Source software without holding the copyrights to them. The takedowns continued even after the movie studio was repeatedly notified about the false claims.

While Warner later admitted the accusations, the movie studio argue that they are not to blame because the mistakes were made by a computer, not a person. As a result, the false takedown request were not “deliberate lies.”

However, not all false takedowns were unintentional. Warner admitted that one of their employees deleted Open Source software from Hotfile on purpose. Their rationale for this was that the software in question could have speeded up infringing downloads.

Warner nonetheless asked the court for summary judgment in its favor, but in September Florida District Court Judge Kathleen Williams decided to let the issue be heard before a jury later this year. She stated that there is enough evidence showing that “Warner intentionally targeted files it knew it had no right to remove.”

Through several new filings Warner is hoping to limit the potential damage, by asking the court to exclude two issues from being discussed during the upcoming trial. The first issue deals with Hotfile’s claim that Warner committed perjury, and the other relates to an audit of the movie studio’s anti-piracy system.

The perjury motion relates to Hotfile’s Special Rightsholder Account (SRA) which Warner used to remove links from the site. This tool required the movie studio to check a box confirming “under penalty of perjury that I am owner or an authorized legal representative of the owner of the copyrights in this material.”

Since Warner admitted that they submitted false takedown requests and Hotfile specified the above requirements in its terms of service, the file-hoster argued that the studio committed a crime. However, Warner disagrees with this line of reasoning.

“That is not how perjury works, not how the DMCA works, is irrelevant to the claims the jury must decide, and would unfairly prejudice the jury against Warner by suggesting that Warner’s errors amounted to criminal acts,” Warner writes.

Warner adds that the DMCA only requires the penalty of perjury statement to confirm that the sender represents the copyright holder, not that the allegedly infringing links point to their copyrighted material, they say.

“The DMCA ‘penalty of perjury’ language is thus narrower than the SRA language that Hotfile employed. The DMCA’s language applies only to impersonating a copyright owner or sending notices on their behalf without authorization; mere misidentification of the files being taken down or the works represented therein are at most incorrect ‘statements’.”

However, Warner also removed copies of JDownloader, which they were certainly not authorized to do. But this was also not a crime either according to the the studio, since it never claimed to be representing JDownloader’s developer Appwerk GmbH.

“To fall under the ‘penalty of perjury’ language in [the DMCA section], however, Warner would have needed not to misidentify instances of JDownloader as infringing Warner works (which is what happened), but instead to correctly identify the taken-down files as JDownloader and then misrepresent itself as acting under authority from Appwerk GmbH, JDownloader’s developer.”

Interestingly, the above reasoning confirms that Warner deliberately used Hotfile’s DMCA tools to take down files that they are not the owner of, an issue that will certainly be brought up during trial.

Warner believes that the above is reason enough to exclude the “perjury” issue from trial. Hotfile can’t just make up crimes by extending the scope of the DMCA, and should not be allowed to present an argument which could mislead the jury, they claim.

In a separate motion Warner wants the court to exclude evidence Hotfile has gathered on an audit of the movie studio’s anti-piracy system, and changes that were made as a result. Warner argues that the audit is irrelevant, since it was performed after the false takedown notices were sent.

If Hotfile would use the audit to argue that the movie studio was aware of the errors in their system, this could potentially confuse the jury.

“There is a substantial risk that the jury will see evidence of Warner’s efforts to investigate the claims in Hotfile’s lawsuit and correct any sources of errors as evidence that Warner ‘knew’ about potential inaccuracies in its system at the relevant times, and improperly attribute such knowledge to Warner months earlier.”

“Because Hotfile has selectively cherry-picked the instances in which Warner located and corrected errors as part of its August 2011 audit, there is further risk that the jury will misread the evidence as ‘proving’ that Warner’s system was error-prone and seek to punish Warner for it,” Warner adds.

The above suggests that Warner is not totally confident that the trial will end well for them. It is now up to the judge to decide whether or not the issues above can be raised during trial.

The judge is also still considering a motion from Hotfile to exclude terms such as “piracy,” “theft” and “stealing” from their trial against the MPAA.

To be continued.

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

A redacted copy of the verdict was released this week confirming that the movie studios won summary judgment on the issues of DMCA defense and vicarious liability. The remaining issues will be fought out in a trial later this year.

What the MPAA didn’t mention, however, is that the issue of Warner Bros’ alleged abuse of Hotfile’s anti-piracy tool will also go to jury.

Hotfile sued the movie studio two years ago for abusing the DMCA takedown process on numerous occasions.

The file-hoster alleged that after giving Warner access to its systems, the studio wrongfully took down hundreds of files including games demos and Open Source software without holding the copyrights to them. The takedowns continued even after the movie studio was repeatedly notified about the false claims.

In a response, Warner Bros. admitted the accusations. However, the movie studio argued that they are not to blame because the mistakes were made by a computer, not a person. As a result, the false takedown request were not “deliberate lies.”

Warner Bros. asked the court for summary judgment in its favor, but Florida District Court Judge Kathleen Williams has decided to let the issue be heard before a jury.

“There is sufficient evidence on the record to suggest that Warner intentionally targeted files it knew it had no right to remove. This precludes summary judgment in [Warner Bros'] favor,” the judge writes.

Judge Williams notes that Warner Bros. does not dispute the erroneous takedowns. The movie studio claimed that these mistakes were unavoidable but also admitted that it did not check whether the “infringing” titles actually pointed to their content. In addition, there are several other factors the jury will have to make a decision on.

“Warner readily admits that mistakes do occur, and Hotfile has identified characteristics that may be responsible for engendering those mistakes. For example, Warner’s staff did not download or review any Hotfile content before marking it for removal,” Williams writes.

Warner Bros. has targeted copyrighted works from other copyright holders, Electronic Arts for example. The movie studio also removed the software JDownloader, which was offered legally, no less than eight times for reasons that are redacted in the verdict.

“Specifically, Hotfile has provided the example of JDownloader, which Warner did not manage [redacted]. It has also shown Warner’s interest in an application of its takedown rights beyond works that it owns. And Warner has not otherwise argued that it had the right to remove those files, only that its mistakes should be excused,” Judge Williams writes.

The above is enough evidence for Hotfile to argue their case before a jury, in what promises to be a unique case on the appropriateness of automated DMCA takedown filters.

“The Court finds this motive and other evidence sufficient to sustain an inference that Warner violated Section 512(c), such that these issues should be presented to the jury.”

The case will now move to trial which is scheduled to start in November. Aside from the copyright infringement claims against Hotfile, the DMCA abuse case is expected to set an important precedent.

To be continued.

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

In line with previous years there will be a strong focus on enforcement and legal initiatives that are needed to secure better copyright protection.

However, there is also a newer trend where pirates are viewed not so much as a problem, but as a challenge and an opportunity to improve legal offerings. David Kaplan, Chief of Anti-Piracy Operations at Warner Bros., explains this line of thought in a teaser for this week’s summit.

“Generally speaking, we view piracy as a proxy of consumer demand,” Kaplan notes.

“Accordingly, enforcement related efforts are balanced with looking at ways to adjust or develop business models to take advantage of that demand by offering fans what they are looking for when they are looking for it.”

The above shows that Warner Bros. has started to treat movie pirates as a market signal and an indication that legal offerings are not yet up to par. Or to put it differently, the movie studio believes that they can beat piracy by competing with it and providing a better user experience.

Kaplan further says that Warner Bros. and its parent company Time Warner are turning a blind eye to some forms of copyright infringement. This means, for example, that the company won’t clamp down on fan-art that offers no commercial threat.

“We give a wide berth to ‘fan use’ and permit fans to use and interact with our content in ways that might technically still constitute copyright infringement, but do not directly substitute for the full length feature, episode or game,” Kaplan notes.

“Freedom of expression is key to our businesses, and any actions pursued on the enforcement side are taken with that in mind,” he adds.

Despite this liberal view on piracy, Warner Bros. continues to target commercial copyright infringers who stand to make a profit from copying their work.

To streamline these enforcement actions the movie studio has structurally integrated the anti-piracy department with other business units. Aside from targeting commercial pirates, there is also a strong focus on educating the public.

“I think our top priority would be to remove the financial incentives from those who would profit by building businesses based on the unauthorized exploitation of our intellectual property. A close second would be educating consumers about the importance of IP protection and the availability of legitimate alternatives to piracy,” Kaplan notes.

All in all it is positive to see a company such as Warner Bros. moving away from the narrow “piracy is plain theft” mantra.

The company appears to realize that a lot of progress can be made through innovation, and trying to understand why people pirate is a huge step forward.

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

The creators of the “Keyboard Cat” and “Nyan Cat” memes have files a lawsuit in a federal court in California, claiming damages for the unauthorized use of their creations.

In the suit the plaintiffs mention that Warner Bros. has a history of protecting their own WB logo meme, and now the tables have turned.

“The “WB” logo also is a meme, even though it is only two letters inside 25 the outline of a shield. Of course, WB employs an army of lawyers who use trademark and copyright law to zealously protect its intellectual property, including its logo,” they write in the complaint.

“Yet, for the past three years, WB, along with game developer 5th, have knowingly and intentionally infringed plaintiffs’ copyrights and trademarks by using “Nyan Cat” and Patso’s image in WB’s top selling “Scribblenauts” games,” they add.

The meme creators demand that Warner Bros. and 5th no longer use their trademarks and request damages to compensate their losses.

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