--Five Indicted in Connection with Website Offering Pirated Content
(September 9, 2011)
Five people have been indicted for their alleged involvement with
NinjaVideo.net, a website that allowed people to download television
programs and movies that had not yet been released to DVD. NinjaVideo
was operational from February 2008 until it was shut down by authorities
in June 2010. The site allowed free access to some digital content. For
a US $25 "donation" people could also access a larger repository of
films, software and other digital content.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/ ... nomyId=144

Pirate Bay co-founder sentenced in piracy case ... but where is he?

The infamous Pirate Bay web site has been known as a place where users could download lots of pirated content, from movies to TV shows to games. In 2010, three people involved with the Pirate Bay web site were convicted for copyright violations in a Swedish appeals court and sentenced to both jail time and fines that totaled millions of dollars. This week, one of the Pirate Bay's co-founders, Gottfrid Svartholm, was also sentenced on the same charges by the Swedish appeals court.

TorrettFreak reports that Svartholm was served with one year of jail time and a $1.1 million fine. However, there's a rather big problem; no one seems to know where Svartholm is. He reportedly was hospitalized in Cambodia in 2010 and later disappeared altogether. Indeed, there is some debate over whether he is even still alive. Svartholm was first sentenced in 2009 by a lower court but after he went missing his lawyer asked the appeals court to suspend sentencing him. Members of the entertainment industry, however, asked that the appeals court render a decision in Svartholm's absence which they finally did this week.

In the meantime the three other defendants in the Pirate Bay case plan to take their appeal to the country's Supreme Court. One of those defendants, Peter Sunde, said, "In the end, we’ll win. I’m certain of that. It’s just that we don’t have the same lobby power as these groups we’re fighting. But the law is on our side, however what we’ve learned is that having the legal right is not the same as winning in court."

--Activist Group Challenging FCC Net Neutrality Rules Over Wireless Exemptions
(September 28, 2011)
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) expected legal challenges
to its net neutrality rules from those who believe the rules exceed the
FCC's authority, but an activist group at the other end of the spectrum
has filed a lawsuit over the rules, claiming they do not go far enough.
Free Press wants a federal appeals court to review the rules because it
is concerned that wireless companies are exempt from some of the most
important policies.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... lity-rules.

--US Signs International Anti-Piracy Agreement
(October 3, 2011)
The US was one of eight countries to sign the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement over the weekend in Japan. Mexico, Switzerland and the
European Union have voiced their support of the agreement and intend "to
sign [it] as soon as possible." The US is pleased with the agreement
especially because piracy and other counterfeiting crimes require
international cooperation because of the global economy. The agreement
places a ban on marketing devices that circumvent copyright protections.
Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South
Korea also signed the agreement.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/1 ... igns-acta/

--NinjaVideo Co-Founder to Plead Guilty to Copyright Infringement
(September 30, 2011)
A co-founder of the NinjaVideo video filesharing site will plead guilty
to conspiracy and criminal copyright infringement. Hana Beshara has
reportedly admitted to earning more than US $200,000 from the business;
she will forfeit assets seized by authorities. Beshara has been an
outspoken proponent of filesharing, citing huge profits enjoyed by
Hollywood. One of her co-defendants pleaded guilty several days before
Beshara's decision to agree to a deal with prosecutors.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... gement.ars

--Verizon Files Suit Challenging Legality of FCC's Net Neutrality Rules
(September 30, 2011)
As expected, Verizon has filed a lawsuit challenging the US Federal
Communications Commission's (FCC) net neutrality rules. The suit alleges
that the rules are too strict and that they exceed the FCC's authority.
Verizon attempted to file a similar lawsuit earlier this year, but the
suit was not allowed because the FCC had not yet published the rules in
the Federal Register.

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

--Belgian Court Orders ISPs to Block The Pirate Bay URLs
(October 5 & 6, 2011)
The Belgian Court of Appeals of Antwerp last week ruled that Internet
service providers (ISPs) Belgacom and Telenet must establish DNS
blocking for nearly a dozen URLs associated with The Pirate Bay. The
order was the result of a lawsuit brought by the Belgian Anti-Piracy
Foundation (BAF). BAF is now urging all ISPs, not just those affected
by the court ruling, to block the site. The court did not, however,
order the ISPs to monitor whether their users circumvented the blocks.
The Pirate Bay has established a new domain name to help users do just
that.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/241270/p ... cking.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/05 ... tebay_ban/

--Former NSA and CIA Director Says NSA Should Monitor Public Networks
(October 4, 2011)
Former NSA and CIA director Michael Hayden told the House Intelligence
Committee that the NSA should be permitted to monitor public networks
to help protect them from attacks. Hayden acknowledged that legislators
may have "a natural political cultural allergy to" allowing the agency
to monitor public networks, but that there exist methods that would
allow the NSA to monitor the networks without violating citizens' civil
liberties. Hayden also said that some people are unaware of the serious
nature and depth of the cyber threats the country's networks are facing
from foreign nation states.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/1 ... -networks/
[Editor's Comment (Pescatore): We've learned in the past that allowing
intelligence agencies and defense agencies to get involved in domestic
issues invariably leads to more problems than gains. This is an idea
that not only would *not* lead to an increase in security on the
Internet but would lead to diluting the business value of the Internet
in the US - having the business environment in the US be looked at
globally as being *more* similar to the business environment in China
is *not* a good thing.
(Honan): The US Patriot Act already raises many concerns with companies
outside the US about the confidentiality of their data, should this
recommendation be implemented I can see it driving many non-US companies
away from using US companies for Internet based services.
(Northcutt): What a week. NC Gov. Bev Purdue suggests suspending
elections; NY State Senators argue that free speech is a privilege, not
a right; and NSA wants to monitor public networks while not violating
citizens' civil liberties. At what point should we be concerned that
democracy is under stress?
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/nort ... 23133.html

MPAA wins case forcing BT to block Usenet index

It's obvious that Hollywood is still trying to kill a fly with a stick of dynamite. The MPAA convinced a British court to force BT to block access to Newzbin.com back in July. Now the BBC reports that BT has two weeks to implement a block of the popular Usenet indexing site. Of greater interest is the fact that the judge has ruled that BT is responsible not only for blocking the current site, but also any future IP address or name that they may move their site to.

While it’s true that the site gives users the ability to find and download copyrighted material, the question as to who should be liable has been a hotly contested debate. Newzbin.com is nothing more than Google for Usenet binary forums and isn’t actually partaking in any illegal activity, so should the site be responsible? It’s almost impossible to stop access to a site on the internet as people in China can attest to. The MPAA has to realize that there are a dozen ways to move the site and since access is only blocked in the UK, a proxy server is one of a number of simple workarounds.

In addition, the fact that the courts believe BT is responsible simply because the infringement occurred using their network is also a slippery slope. Is AT&T responsible when a crime is organized using their cellular network? Is FedEx responsible for an illegally copied DVD shipped via their service? The lines are definitely blurred in the digital age.

--Study Says Comcast is No Longer Selectively Throttling BitTorrent Traffic
(October 21, 2011)
A new study indicates that Comcast is complying with US Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) ruling requiring that it not throttle
BitTorrent traffic. Comcast believes that the FCC overstepped its
authority in ordering the cessation of selective throttling, but said
it would comply with the order and maintains its right to throttle
traffic during unusually high periods of congestion. Comcast said it is
using a system that throttles traffic of heavy users during unusually
high volume times, but does not pick and choose which users get
throttled.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/1 ... g-comcast/

--Technique Ties Skype IP Addresses to P2P File Sharing Activity
(October 21, 2011)
Researchers have found a method of matching Skype users to peer-to-peer
networks so that it may become easier to pinpoint who is responsible for
sharing files through BitTorrent and other P2P networks. The method
involved using a packet sniffer to identify Skype users' IP addresses
without their knowledge and seeing whether that same address is
associated with files shared over P2P networks.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/1 ... kype-user/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/21 ... _stalking/
http://cis.poly.edu/%7Eross/papers/skypeIMC2011.pdf

--Tech Companies and Civil Liberty Groups Push to Revamp Outdated
Privacy Law
(October 21, 2011)
A number of large US technology companies and civil liberties
organizations are lobbying legislators to update the 25-year-old
Electronic Communications Privacy Act. When the law was enacted in 1986,
most people had never heard of email and mobile phones were largely the
stuff of science fiction. In 1986, email was not kept on servers for
long periods of time because users downloaded messages to their own
computers, so email left on servers for more than six months was
considered abandoned. Now email is stored in the cloud in vast
quantities for long periods of time, but the law still considers the
email that has been there for longer than six months to be "abandoned."
If changes are not made, law enforcement officers will continue to have
access to citizens' stored communications that are more than six months
old without a warrant as long as they assert that the content is
relevant to a criminal investigation. The law also allows law
enforcement to access all files stored in the cloud for longer than six
months without a warrant, even though cloud storage services, like
Dropbox, did not exist in 1986. A federal appeals court last year ruled
that email stored in the cloud for longer than six months still requires
a warrant for access, but the ruling applies only to Kentucky, Michigan,
Ohio and Tennessee. The ruling stated that "The Fourth Amendment must
keep pace with the inexorable march of technological progress, or its
guarantees will wither and perish."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/1 ... enty-five/
[Editor's Note (Liston and Ranum):. The 4th amendment doesn't need to
keep pace with technology; it was clear and unambiguous. The ambiguity
was introduced as part of the slow process of circumventing it.]

--BT Must Start Blocking Newzbin 2 Within Two Weeks
(October 26, 2011)
A UK High Court judge has given British Internet service provider (ISP)
BT two weeks to implement a plan to block Newzbin2, a membership-only
site known for making pirated content available. The ruling is the
result of a lawsuit brought by US movie companies. The judge decided
that BT was aware of the copyright infringement activity occurring on
Newzbin2 and had ruled in July that the company must prevent its
customers from being able to access that site. The judge also ruled that
"the costs of implementing the order should be borne by BT."

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/compliance/ ... -40094286/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15459005

[Editor's Note (Murray): Seems to me that BT is a victim here. They are
being made responsible for the criminal activity of others. They are
being forced to do something both expensive and ineffective. The
Internet routes around censorship. How much damage are the rest of us
supposed to endure because the publishers cannot figure out how to offer
their products at a price both profitable to them and not so high as to
create a black market?

(Liston): This all sounded somewhat reasonable up until the last
sentence. If the movie companies expect ISPs to block access to sites
at their behest, then they really should be footing the bill. They own
the copyright, they benefit financially from its protection, so
expecting a disinterested third-party to cover the costs of implementing
a block on infringing websites seems a bit over the top.]

--Proposed Legislation Would Broaden US Government's Authority to
Blacklist Piracy Websites
(October 26, 2011)
Legislators in the US House of Representatives have introduced a bill
that would increase the government's authority to shut down web sites
that offer products that violate copyright and trademark laws. The
proposed legislation would allow the Justice Department to obtain court
orders requiring ISPs in the US to stop resolving DNS for the offending
websites; the sites could still be accessible outside the US. The bill
would also allow the government to order search engines to remove
certain websites from their results. The US attorney general would also
be granted the authority to block distribution of workarounds to allow
access to blacklisted sites.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/1 ... -proposal/
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf ... 203261.pdf

Newzbin claims BT block 'not working'

BT has started blocking access to the controversial website Newzbin 2.

But the group behind the site claims that its users are still able to access it via a workaround that it issued in September.

Newzbin 2 is a members-only site which aggregates a large amount of the illegally copied material found on Usenet discussion forums.

Last month the movie industry won the right to impose blocks via BT.

BT told the BBC that the block had come into force on 2 November.

It is implementing the blocks by tweaking software developed to prevent users from finding websites showing images of child abuse.

"Newzbin have offered their customers a client for over a month that they claim will bypass Cleanfeed. However we're not in a position to comment on whether that claim is true or not," said a spokesman.

The group behind Newzbin 2 commented: "We've heard that the British Telecom censorship of the free web has begun."

It told the BBC that 93.5% of its active UK users have downloaded the workaround software.

It is not willing to reveal how the code attempts to get around the Cleanfeed block.

However, tests run by website TorrentFreak found that the program relies on encryption to hide communication between users and Newzbin2.

Another technique it uses is to route all traffic through a well-established system known as TOR, which masks the identity of users and what they are trying to look at.

TorrentFreak reports that some users are getting an error message when attempting to access the site.

Some are able to get to it by typing the raw IP address into their browser, while others are relying on the anti-blocking software provided by Newzbin.

Copyright infringement

The court case against BT was brought by the Motion Picture Association and is the first of its kind in the UK.

It is expected that other ISPs will be taken to court in coming months in order to impose further blocks on the site.

The MPA has described Newzbin as a "criminal organisation whose business model is based on wholesale copyright infringement".

The first version of the Windows program Newzbin2 members will use to get at the site was released in September. Versions for Apple's OSX and Linux are planned.

"Newzbin2 shall go on, its users shall continue to access the site and its facilities," the Newzbin team told the BBC.

"Nothing has changed and they [the MPA] have no change after paying millions of dollars in legal fees," it added.

Arts groups tell BT to block access to The Pirate Bay

UK arts lobby groups have demanded BT block access to the BitTorrent file sharing website, The Pirate Bay.

Music industry trade body, the BPI, said it would take legal action if the telecoms firm refused to co-operate.

The movie industry has already forced BT to block Newzbin 2, a members-only which aggregates illegally copied material.

BT said: "We can confirm we are now in receipt of a letter from the BPI. BT is considering its response."

The telecoms operator added that a court order would be needed before any blocking could begin.

A source told the BBC the firm was unlikely to fight a lengthy legal battle as it had in the Newzbin case.

"We would not tolerate Counterfeits 'R' Us on the High Street - if we want economic growth, we cannot accept illegal rip-off sites on the internet either," said the BPI's chief executive, Geoff Taylor.

Richard Mollet, chief executive of The Publishers Association added: "It is crucial that the creative sector keeps up the momentum of getting internet companies to do their bit in tackling illegal sites."

The Motion Picture Association, independents trade body PACT and the Creative Coalition Campaign also voiced their support.

Illegal

The Pirate Bay was launched in 2003 by a group of friends from Sweden and rapidly became one of the most famous file-sharing sites on the web.

Although it hosts no files itself, it does allow users to search for and get at copyrighted content including movies, games and TV shows.

In April 2009, the Swedish courts found the four founders of the site guilty of helping people circumvent copyright controls.

The ruling was upheld after an appeal in 2010, but the site continues to function.