Copyright legal issues in the news

ted262 · 22 Aug 2004

How? Maybe because the US Government should be protecting the rights of all citizens, not just the "citizens" that have deep pockets. The DOJ is working awfully hard for the relatively small (population-wise) MPAA group, and yet the other 6.6 million people can just suck it.

Kyle Goodwin may be the only one petitioning (I certainly don't claim to know for sure, it's just the only one I've heard about). You may notice however, that he's being represented by the EFF and now the retired judge (pro bono). I'd hazard a guess that the majority of people using Megaupload (and other services like it) probably don't have deep pockets to lay out the cash for high-priced attorneys that will be billing thousands of hours before this case is done.

Also, the DOJ/MPAA's case assumes quite a few things that haven't been proven. One of the things I noticed today was that they're saying that Megaupload can't have any of their seized money back because it was all earned through piracy. Last time I looked, the business model was based on people paying for faster access to their data (you know, subscription fees, which were legal last time I looked) - not paying for copyrighted material. They haven't proven anything yet in court. So all those people paid their money, which in turn helps pay for the servers, but the MPAA says "it's all ours" - including, presumably, Kyle Goodwin's subscription fees to access his game films.

I'm not a lawyer, and I have no dog in this particular fight, since I spend my money on my own backup drives, but this is definitely something that's important. The US Government is increasingly becoming subservient to the interests of those with money. That should be obvious to anyone. Chris Dodd and the MPAA need to understand that they do not decide policy (even when they're so helpful as to write it for the poor over-worked Congressmen). That whole "justice and equality" thing needs to brought back, otherwise we might as well just go back to rich, white, male, property-owners making all the decisions.

Geff R. · 27 Sep 2006

ted262 wrote:

I'd hazard a guess that the majority of people using Megaupload (and other services like it) probably don't have deep pockets to lay out the cash for high-priced attorneys that will be billing thousands of hours before this case is done.

I was thinking exactly the same. Most folks with legit storage on ML likely can't afford an attorney to fight the US gvt.

alantig · **Joined:** 20 Sep 2006 **Posts:** 4933

More on the case - I wonder if the MPAA can buy pants off the rack. It must be hard to find ones that fit over their huge balls.

Quote:

If Megaupload users want their data, they're going to have to pay
The U.S. government says it doesn't have the data and isn't opposed to users retrieving it

By Jeremy Kirk, IDG News Service | Add a new comment

June 12, 2012, 1:49 AM — U.S. federal prosecutors are fine with Megaupload users recovering their data -- as long as they pay for it.

The government's position was explained in a court filing on Friday concerning one of the many interesting side issues that has emerged from the shutdown of Megaupload, formerly one of the most highly trafficked file-sharing sites.

Prosecutors were responding to a motion filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in late March on behalf of Kyle Goodwin, an Ohio-based sports reporter who used Megaupload legitimately for storing videos.

Goodwin's hard drive crashed, and he lost access to the data he backed up on Megaupload when the site was shut down on Jan. 19 on criminal copyright infringement charges.

U.S. law allows for third parties who have an interest in forfeited property to make a claim. But the government argues that it only copied part of the Megaupload data and the physical servers were never seized.

Megaupload's 1,103 servers -- which hold upwards of 28 petabytes of data -- are still held by Carpathia Hosting, the government said.

"Access is not the issue -- if it was, Mr. Goodwin could simply hire a forensic expert to retrieve what he claims is his property and reimburse Carpathia for its associated costs," the response said. "The issue is that the process of identifying, copying, and returning Mr. Goodwin's data will be inordinately expensive, and Mr. Goodwin wants the government, or Megaupload, or Carpathia, or anyone other than himself, to bear the cost."

The government also suggested that if Megaupload or Carpathia violated a term of service or contract, Goodwin could "sue Megaupload or Carpathia or recover his losses."

The issue of what to do with Megaupload's data has been hanging around for a while. Carpathia contends it costs US$9,000 a day to maintain. Megaupload's assets are frozen, so it has asked a court to make the DOJ pay for preserving the data, which may be needed for its defense. So far, the issue remains unresolved.

Meanwhile, Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom is free on bail, living in his rented home near Auckland and awaiting extradition proceedings to begin in August. Dotcom along with Finn Batato, Julius Bencko, Sven Echternach, Mathias Ortmann, Andrus Nomm and Bram Van Der Kolk are charged with criminal copyright infringement and money laundering.

The men -- along with two companies -- are accused of collecting advertising and subscription fees from users for faster download speeds of material stored on Megaupload. Prosecutors allege the website and its operators collected US$175 million in criminal proceeds, costing copyright holders more than $500 billion in damages to copyright holders.

So, let me see if I understand the MPAA's reasoning (although not fully stated here) - it's too expensive for copyright holders to identify individual infringers, thus the need for them to have the ability to have sites like Megaupload shut down (SOPA, CISPA). But it's fine, after the shutdown, to require presumably innocent customers like Goodwin to have to pay to gain access to their legal property? I guess the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply.

Alan

Geff R. · 27 Sep 2006

Alan, I agree with your pov, but it looks to me like the anger should be directed at the US govt. "The government's position was explained in a court filing on Friday"

You know I hate the MPAA/RIAA, but it looks like our current gvt is deeply in bed with them.

alantig · **Joined:** 20 Sep 2006 **Posts:** 4933

Yeah - it's a combination, but I highly doubt the DOJ wasn't prodded on this.

Alan

Geff R. · 27 Sep 2006

More on Goodman (which I am coming to suspect is being used by SOMEBODY as a test case):

Sans wrote:

--US Government Says It Doesn't Have to Retrieve Megaupload User's Files
(June 11, 2012)
Ohio videographer Kyle Goodman filed a lawsuit seeking the return of his
files from the US government; his files were stored on Megaupload's
servers which were shut down in January as part of the government's case
against the filesharing site. Goodwin has the help of the Electronic
Frontier Foundation, and the Motion Picture Association of America
(MPAA) said it would not object to Goodwin and other users regaining
access to their legitimately owned files. However, the government claims
that because it did not seize the Megaupload servers - it merely imaged
a number of them - it cannot return legitimately uploaded data. The
government says that Goodwin should sue Megaupload for the files,
despite the government having seized Megaupload's assets in January. The
government does not oppose Goodwin having access to the information, but
says that retrieving his files would be unduly burdensome.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012 ... git-files/
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/0 ... load-data/

ted262 · 22 Aug 2004

Oh look, Chris Dodd thinks Canadians are crooks too.

The MPAA's Secret Lobby Campaign on Bill C-11 and a Canadian SOPA

Brainiac McGee · **Joined:** 10 Jun 2011 **Posts:** 2311

Geff R. wrote:

More on Goodman (which I am coming to suspect is being used by SOMEBODY as a test case):

Of course he's being used as a test case. All of this hysteria aside, Goodwin has a legitimate issue that doesn't seem to be addressed by current statutes--a recurring happenstance in this digital age. Ultimately, it will be a federal judge who decides this.

Geff R. · 27 Sep 2006

My point on Goodwin/Goodman (whichever it is) is I'm curious who's financing this particular test (& I really don't have an educated guess on that).

Geff R. · 27 Sep 2006

ted262 wrote:

Oh look, Chris Dodd thinks Canadians are crooks too.

The MPAA's Secret Lobby Campaign on Bill C-11 and a Canadian SOPA

Looks like Dodd also watched too many John Wayne films. Perhaps he'll run for president in 2016.

Brainiac McGee · **Joined:** 10 Jun 2011 **Posts:** 2311

Geff R. wrote:

My point on Goodwin/Goodman (whichever it is) is I'm curious who's financing this particular test (& I really don't have an educated guess on that).

The Electronic Frontier Foundation.

https://www.eff.org/cases/megaupload-data-seizure
https://www.eff.org/document/brief-inte ... le-goodwin
https://www.eff.org/document/kyle-goodw ... n-property

ted262 · 22 Aug 2004

Seems like it's all about music and film copyright stuff in here, so I thought I'd toss this in, just in case anyone is unaware of The Oatmeal/Funnyjunk fiasco.

Long story short for those that missed this: The Oatmeal is the site of comic artist Matthew Inman. He's got a bit of a following on the internet. A year or so back, he noticed that the site Funnyjunk had some of his comics on their page and all attribution was missing. Funnyjunk makes money from ads on their page. Inman didn't sue, but he did write a blog calling FJ out for stealing his work. FJ took the stuff down, but apparently the trend continued.

A year later, FJ hires a lawyer who sends Inman a cease-and-desist letter demanding he remove any mention of FJ from his site and further demanding $20k to not get sued for defamation. Inman basically tells them to shove it, and starts a fundraising campaign through Indiegogo to raise $20k - that he will donate to charity (the American Cancer Society and The National Wildlife Federation), saying he'll take a picture of the $20k and send it, along with a cartoon of FJ's "mom" seducing a bear.

Lawyer gets butthurt and sues not only Inman and Indiegogo, but the ACS and NWF.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/com ... _blog.html

Seriously, this is why we need better laws about frivolous lawsuits and censure against lawyers that participate in this kind of crap. (and in case it's not clear, there's quite a bit of copyright stuff involved, including the lawyers claims that none of Inman's cartoons are copyrighted).

Geff R. · 27 Sep 2006

Here's the other side of it (& this surprised me):

I have an acquaintance at a small boutique USA cd label. I noticed that someone was selling what appeared to be unlicensed copies of part of their products on ebay. I wrote the person I know. They're response (this is a paraphrase) was that they had contacted ebay about this several times & that ebay wouldn't do a thing.

This is a HUGE change on ebay's part. Back in the day, if a record label so much as breathed at them, ebay would take perfectly legal items down instantly. Apparently they've done a 180. I find it interesting. While my acquittance didn't get into why they hadn't taken legal action against ebay, they certainly are entitled to under the DMCA, & unless the law has changed ebay would be in deep doo doo.

Geff R. · 27 Sep 2006

sans wrote:

--More Megaupload Legal Maneuvering
(June 14, 15, & 18, 2012)
The US Attorney's office said that a request from Megaupload's legal
team to dismiss criminal copyright charges against the company should
be denied. Megaupload maintained that the US has no jurisdiction over
the company because it does not have offices in the US. In a related
story, a high court judge in New Zealand has ordered the US government
to prepare to copy the 150 terabytes of data held on servers seized
in the Megaupload case and provide them to the Megaupload defense team.
http://news.techworld.com/personal-tech ... load-data/
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/0 ... poad-data/
http://rt.com/usa/news/data-dotcom-megaupload-us-948/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-574535 ... l-charges/

Brainiac McGee · **Joined:** 10 Jun 2011 **Posts:** 2311

Geff R. wrote:

sans wrote:

--More Megaupload Legal Maneuvering
(June 14, 15, & 18, 2012)
The US Attorney's office said that a request from Megaupload's legal
team to dismiss criminal copyright charges against the company should
be denied. Megaupload maintained that the US has no jurisdiction over
the company because it does not have offices in the US. In a related
story, a high court judge in New Zealand has ordered the US government
to prepare to copy the 150 terabytes of data held on servers seized
in the Megaupload case and provide them to the Megaupload defense team.
http://news.techworld.com/personal-tech ... load-data/
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/0 ... poad-data/
http://rt.com/usa/news/data-dotcom-megaupload-us-948/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-574535 ... l-charges/

Wonder what effect the New Zealand injunction may have on the Goodwin motion. Somebody needs to do something with all that data, and the U.S. has managed to put itself in the best position to do something with it. Frankly, it seems that the Megaupload defense team has a better claim to the material than does Goodwin, but what the hell do I know.

ted262 · 22 Aug 2004

More histrionics from the RIAA.

RIAA to CNET: Follow Google, nix video-to-MP3 conversions

They might succeed in pressuring CNET on this, but the cat's already out of the bag. It's simple to find client-side software that will rip any video or audio streamed to your computer. It's really the internet's version of setting up the VCR and dubbing the audio (or making copies from VCR to VCR).

alantig · **Joined:** 20 Sep 2006 **Posts:** 4933

Yes it is. You can do it out of the box with Windows. A little more work on the Mac, but still pretty doable. If you can hear it, you can copy it.

Alan

Brainiac McGee · **Joined:** 10 Jun 2011 **Posts:** 2311

I'm not sure how one might criminalize this type of software. This is merely the 21st century's incarnation of "home taping", an activity that the industry tried, and failed, to criminalize back in the '80's.

ted262 · 22 Aug 2004

That's pretty much their MO though - keep trying to put the genie back in the bottle, and cry and scream that everyone else is responsible for fixing their problems.

Geff R. · 27 Sep 2006

ted262 wrote:

More histrionics from the RIAA.

RIAA to CNET: Follow Google, nix video-to-MP3 conversions

They might succeed in pressuring CNET on this, but the cat's already out of the bag. It's simple to find client-side software that will rip any video or audio streamed to your computer. It's really the internet's version of setting up the VCR and dubbing the audio (or making copies from VCR to VCR).

I've discovered the hard way a couple of those programs distributed on legit sites like CNET (though not necessarily CNET; I don't remember where I got them) come with nasties: I picked up the Babylon Toolbar & some adware trojan that starts with a "Z" (I don't remember the name) from programs guaranteed by the legit shareware/freeware sites to be "spyware free". It took 3 programs to get rid of all the garbage.

One came in on a you tube video converter, & one was embedded in the uninstaller of a "wavpack" format codec. And based on reading, neither were false positives.

Geff R. · 27 Sep 2006

Brainiac McGee wrote:

I'm not sure how one might criminalize this type of software. This is merely the 21st century's incarnation of "home taping", an activity that the industry tried, and failed, to criminalize back in the '80's.

Because of the low quality, I don't see much difference between downloading mp3's & home taping.

ted262 · 22 Aug 2004

Nice - Comcast does something right for a change.

Comcast handed victory in adult video 'John Doe' case

Quote:

Overbroad subpoenas quashed, civil case closed

As previously reported, Internet service provider Comcast attempted to quash "John Doe" subpoenas in an adult video pirating case. The company had argued that the case was about "shaking down" its customers and pushing for settlements out of the 264 potential infringers rather than any interest in actually stopping the piracy. The company has now been handed a victory in court, as Judge Gary Feinerman ruled that Comcast was not in contempt of court for ignoring subpoenas from four adult video companies. The civil case was also dismissed.

Copyright legal issues in the news

Who is WANline