Monday, February 3, 2020

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Supreme Court Denies Kim Dotcom's Appeal to Access Illegal Spy Recordings
Andy, 03 Feb 08:18 PM

In the weeks and months leading up to and beyond the 2012 raid on Kim Dotcom and his former associates, the Megaupload founder was being spied on by the authorities in New Zealand.

Between December 2011 and March 2012, the highly secretive Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) spy agency listened in on the private communications of Kim and former wife Mona Dotcom, plus Megaupload co-defendant Bram van der Kolk.

Given the US-instigated investigation into Dotcom and Megaupload, this type of eavesdropping may seem little out of the ordinary. However, GCSB's powers are limited by law, including that it may not conduct surveillance on New Zealand citizens or permanent residents. Since Dotcom is a permanent resident, that made the spying illegal.

Ever since the authorities accepted that potential evidence had been illegally obtained, the Megaupload founder has put considerable effort into finding out exactly what was captured by the GCSB. At every turn, however, he has been declined access to the material.

In 2017, for example, the High Court rejected Dotcom's request, claiming that the release of the intercepted communications would undermine national security. Overall, the ruling added, withholding the information would be in the public interest, even if that was at the expense of Dotcom's rights.

Predictably, Dotcom refused to back down, immediately taking the matter to the Court of Appeal. Unfortunately for him, the result was the same.

While accepting that the intercepted communications are "relevant" and could be "put to use", in a 2019 ruling the Court determined that Dotcom's right to access the information was outweighed by national security concerns.

With the Supreme Court the only avenue left for Dotcom, an appeal was subsequently filed there. In a written judgment published today, the Supreme Court sided with the decisions of the lower courts and refused to hear the appeal.

"We are not satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice to hear the
proposed appeal. While there may be questions arising about the scope and
application of s 70 of the Evidence Act, the present case is not the appropriate case to consider those issues," the panel of three judges writes.

"No question of principle arises. Rather, the matters the applicant wishes to raise relate to whether natural justice was met in this particular case and as to the weight given to the competing public interests on these facts."

Rejecting the notion that there had been a miscarriage of justice, the judges note that since the case has been examined in detail by the lower courts and justice will be done by compensating Dotcom for his loss of dignity, the Supreme Court will not review the matter.

"Mr Dotcom's arguments would reprise matters all of which have been carefully examined in the Courts below and, as the Court of Appeal noted, the 'general nature of the disputed information is known to Mr Dotcom'. In addition, these issues would arise in a context where the respondent has been held to account having accepted liability and the central question is as to the level of damages," the judges add.

In a statement on the decision to deny his appeal, this morning Dotcom criticizes the entire process, drawing particular attention to the fact that his lawyers have been prevented from doing their jobs properly on the grounds of national security.

"[T]hey have not been permitted to have any meaningful input into this process because, at every stage, the GCSB has required its evidence and submissions to be treated as classified and heard only in a secret hearing from which my counsel and I were excluded," Dotcom writes.

"The Courts' reasons were also classified and not stated in their decisions. We have been blindfolded, with one hand tied behind our backs, while up against the fully equipped and limitlessly funded GCSB and Crown lawyers seeking to keep us all in the dark and away from the truth."

While at some point Dotcom will be awarded damages for the illegal spying, he says this process has never been about money, not least since it ceased being economically viable a long time ago.

"For me, it has always been about ensuring that we know what has happened and, as a result, the GCSB is held accountable publicly for its unlawful conduct under John Key's National government. I want to make sure that this never happens again.

"We shouldn't be kept in the dark when state agencies act unlawfully and they should never get away with not being fully accountable to us, as the GCSB has now achieved. They don't care about paying some money to me and my family, although they will fight to limit that also. They just care about you and I not getting to know what they did, or the actual harm they caused," he adds.

But while today's ruling was handed down by New Zealand's top court, Dotcom believes that interference from the United States played an important role in denying him access to the illegally captured communications. As a result, he's now embarking on a new mission, one to change the law in New Zealand.

"I don't like the United States influencing what we all should be entitled to as people of New Zealand, as I fear may have happened here. No one should. But, they, and the GCSB, has stopped me from knowing the truth, at least for now. If the Court of Appeal's decision represents the law in New Zealand, then the law must change. I will fight for that change. Please join me," he concludes.

As reported last week, Dotcom is awaiting another decision from the Supreme Court regarding his extradition to the United States. He doesn't believe the decision will go in his favor but is preparing for a long battle, one that could see him fight in New Zealand for another seven years.

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

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week on BitTorrent – 02/03/20
Ernesto, 03 Feb 04:41 PM

This week we have two newcomers in our chart.

Ford v Ferrari is the most downloaded movie.

The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are Web-DL/Webrip/HDRip/BDrip/DVDrip unless stated otherwise.

RSS feed for the articles of the recent weekly movie download charts.

This week's most downloaded movies are:
Movie Rank Rank last week Movie name IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrents
1 (…) Ford v Ferrari 8.2 / trailer
2 (1) Terminator: Dark Fate 6.4 / trailer
3 (3) Doctor Sleep 7.5 / trailer
4 (2) Joker 8.8 / trailer
5 (…) Uncut Gems 7.9 / trailer
6 (4) 1917 (DVDscr) 8.6 / trailer
7 (8) Frozen 2 (DVDScr) 7.2 / trailer
8 (9) Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood 7.9 / trailer
9 (6) Playing With Fire 4.7 / trailer
10 (5) Maleficent: Mistress of Evil 6.8 / trailer

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

Cox Asks Court to Overturn or Lower 'Shockingly Excessive' $1 Billion Piracy Verdict
Ernesto, 03 Feb 11:38 AM

Last December Internet provider Cox Communications lost its legal battle against a group of major record labels.

Following a two-week trial, the jury held Cox liable for the copyright infringements of its subscribers, ordering the company to pay $1 billion in damages.

The verdict sent a shockwave through the industry, not least because several other ISPs are caught up in similar lawsuits. Cox itself is heavily disappointed by the decision and would like the court to overturn the verdict.

Late last week Cox renewed its request for a judgment as a matter of law, asking the court instead of the jury to rule on several piracy liability questions.

According to Cox, the evidence presented did not support the jury's findings of direct, contributory, or vicarious liability. In addition, the ISP argued that least 8,000 copyrighted works should not have been part of the judgment.

This motion was submitted together with a separate request to lower the damages award. If the court chooses not to grant the judgment as a matter of law, this so-called motion for remittitur will come into play.

Federal courts have the power to lower the awarded damages when the scale of the amount is disproportionate to the evidence or when it results in a miscarriage of justice. According to Cox, that's certainly the case here.

"The $1 billion verdict in this case is a shocking miscarriage of justice. It vastly exceeds any previous statutory damages award under the Copyright Act," the ISP writes in its motion for remittitur.

"It is wholly disproportionate to the evidence of harm to Plaintiffs, benefit to Cox, or any demonstrated need for deterrence, and is unsupportable under the Court's jury instruction on damages," Cox adds.

The ISP points out that the damages award appears to be the largest ever in a copyright case, eight times higher than the previous record. According to Cox, there is no basis for this high amount, especially since Cox is not a direct infringer.

In the damages instruction, the jury was asked to take a variety of factors into account. This included the profits Cox earned because of the infringement, a deterrent against future infringement, willfulness, and the need to punish the ISP.

According to Cox, however, the massive damages are in no way justified by these factors and the presented evidence.

"As applied by the jury, however, [the factors] resulted in an award that bore no relationship to these considerations, and was so grossly excessive as to constitute a miscarriage of justice.

"Because the extraordinary $1 billion verdict cannot be supported by the factors the jury was instructed to consider or the evidence informing those factors, Cox is entitled to a substantial remittitur or a new trial," the ISP states.

Among other things, the ISP stresses that any profits it made from repeat infringers are not exclusively tied to infringing activity. Any reasonable connection to the excessive damages amount is missing.

If the court prefers not to consider lowering the damages amount, the ISP would like to have a retrial to argue its case again and show that an award of $1 billion in damages is shockingly excessive.

A copy of Cox's renewed request for a judgment as a matter of law is available here (pdf) and the motion for remittitur 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: