Sunday, February 2, 2020

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Author Fears That Former Pirate Site Owner is Trying to Bankrupt Him
Andy, 02 Feb 09:05 PM

Since the lawsuit was filed in March 2019, we've been keeping a close eye on the battle between author John Van Stry and Travis McCrea, the former operator of eBook download platform, eBook.bike.

Right from the beginning, it has been an unconventional copyright dispute. Instead of maintaining a low profile, McCrea actually invited litigation, goading Van Stry and other authors to take him on. McCrea insisted he would prove that what he was doing was entirely legal and eventually Van Stry and his legal team took the bait.

Ten months on and it seems increasingly unlikely that McCrea or Van Stry will come out of this matter in materially better shape than they went in.

If this was being scored as a professional boxing match entering the final rounds, thus far every judge would have Van Stry massively up on points. His legal team has put on a dominating performance and at no juncture has McCrea looked like taking a single round. As a result, Van Stry is now the prohibitive favorite to take the win, at least on paper.

But in this matter, winning rounds is only part of the story. If court documents are to be believed, Van Stry's team has put in a massive effort to get this fight won but McCrea hasn't put up much of a fight at all, despite calling for the conflict to begin with. In fact, he's accused of obstructing every effort to get the matter settled.

Whether this is the inevitable result of McCrea choosing to defend himself in a complex case isn't entirely clear but according to comments made by Van Stry this week, tactics designed to reduce his ability to fight may be at play.

"If you've followed any of the legal followings, you'll know that I was presented with a long list of things for discovery, which really made it seem like Travis was just trying to make my life hard. But I delivered it," the author wrote on his GoFundMe page, which is raising money towards his litigation.

"However, Travis has refused to deliver anything. The judge has told him time and time again to produce, but Travis has continually refused. Pretty much he's just ignoring everything and everybody. This of course has driven my legal costs way up, but that's obviously Travis' game, to try and bankrupt me or something I guess."

While Van Stry is clearly ahead, the costs of coming out on top are mounting. The case to date has cost him $60,000 with less than half of that being covered by donations. That puts the author $30,000 in the red but with the finishing line currently marked with a $90,000 price tag, he could still be $60,000 in the hole at the end.

This personal financial exposure is the result of the case being one of the few on record to feature an individual copyright holder suing a site owner, rather than litigation being carried out by a deep-pocketed corporation. It's a point not lost on the author.

"[P]irates can do what they want of course, because our legal system makes it horrendously expensive for private individuals to go to court and most judges seem to be unaware of these things, possibly because they're used to dealing with corporate lawyers who are on a salary. So money isn't an issue for anyone in most of their experience," he says.

This entire case has been difficult to watch but as the months go by, one has to wonder what any final victory will look like for Van Stry. Importantly, eBook.bike is down and has been for months, so if that was the aim of the litigation the mission has already been accomplished. Obviously an injunction to prevent it from returning would be a useful addition but then what?

If one is obtained in the United States, any judgment would need to be enforced against McCrea in Canada. That's not beyond the realms of possibility but given that the former Pirate Party leader has declared he has no assets to speak of, blood and stones come to mind, neither of which can conjure up $60,000. And that's ignoring any damages award, which may be considerably less and still might go unpaid.

However, presuming that he had an idea of how much this action would cost going in, it's certainly possible that Van Stry considers this a personal mission to do his part to hinder piracy, not just for him, but on behalf of all the other authors that are currently supporting him. And, having come this far, the pressure is probably on to carry this through to the bitter end.

Nevertheless, in piracy mitigation terms, 'hinder' is the operative word here.

The closure of eBook.bike and/or legal destruction of Travis McCrea won't do much to prevent the piracy of Van Stry's or his fellow authors' books on other platforms. And, from a strictly financial perspective, one has to sell an awful lot of books to recover $90,000.

So, to an outsider, this now looks like a battle of ideals, with McCrea's 'pirate' mantra on one hand and Van Stry doggedly pushing back in the opposite direction. Unfortunately and in purely practical terms, it seems increasingly unlikely that either side will benefit financially from this litigation, unless one counts Van Stry's legal team in that equation, of course.

Then again, perhaps money isn't everything.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Record Labels Will Ask Potential Piracy Trial Jurors if They Read TorrentFreak
Ernesto, 02 Feb 01:55 PM

Some of the world's largest music companies have taken several ISPs to court, accusing them of not doing enough to curb piracy.

This legal campaign, which is supported by the RIAA, resulted in a massive windfall for the copyright holders last month.

Following a two week trial, Cox was found guilty by a jury that awarded a billion dollars in damages. Soon after this win, the music companies shifted their focus to the next battle, the upcoming trial against ISP Grande Communications.

Similar to the Cox case, the music companies, including Capitol Records, Warner Bros, and Sony Music, argue that the Internet provider willingly turned a blind eye to pirating customers. As such, it should be held accountable for copyright infringements allegedly committed by its users.

Grande will start the trial at a severe disadvantage. The court previously granted summary judgment in favor of the record labels, ruling that the ISP will go to trial without a safe harbor defense. This means that it can be held secondarily liable for the pirating activity of its users.

This week both parties submitted their 'voir dire' questions for potential trial jurors. The jury consists of members of the public, but the legal teams from both sides are allowed to ask questions during the selection process, to ensure that jurors are unbiased.

The music companies, for example, will ask whether potential jurors or people close to them, ever worked for Grande Communications. That makes sense. The same is true for the question that asks whether they have any negative opinions of record labels.

While browsing through the 40 questions for the jurors, we also noticed that the labels are interested in anyone reading this article right now. Apparently, being a reader of TorrentFreak or Ars Technica is something prospective jurors must disclose.

"Have you ever read or visited Ars Technica or TorrentFreak?" question 33 reads.

What the labels plan to do with the answers remains a guess. We have covered these and other piracy liability lawsuits in great detail over the years. So, perhaps the labels want to pick our readers, many of whom are legal experts. On the other hand, our news selection and the associated knowledge may also be seen as bias.

Whatever the reason, we'll take it as a compliment.

Reading through the rest of the questions we see more interesting mentions. The labels want to know whether the jurors have ever downloaded anything from torrent sites such as The Pirate Bay and RARBG, for example. In addition, they are asked whether they support the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) or if they ever worked for a technology company.

What also stands out is the question that asks prospective jurors if they believe there are "too many frivolous lawsuits nowadays," while asking the candidates to give examples.

The record labels are not the only ones asking questions of course. Grande Communications has also prepared a list, hoping to signal bias or other disqualifying factors.

The ISP asks, for example, if the candidates have ever worked at a record label or in the music industry. The company also asks whether they believe it's an ISP's responsibility to monitor and police online piracy.

Grande doesn't ask about TorrentFreak, but it does want to know whether the prospective jurors have ever heard of BitTorrent.

The jury selection for the upcoming trial is scheduled to take place on February 24th and the trial will start a day later. In the coming weeks, both parties will work on their final preparations.

The record label's questions are available here (pdf) and Grande Communication's questions can be found here (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: