TorrentFreak's Latest News

Movie Company Demands $10K From BitTorrent Pirate, Court Awards $750Andy Maxwell, 31 Oct 10:38 PM After roughly two decades of pirated movies being

Movie Company Demands $10K From BitTorrent Pirate, Court Awards $750 Andy Maxwell, 31 Oct 10:38 PM After roughly two decades of pirated movies being shared online, movie companies are still trying to find a way to stem the flow. Despite its aggressive actions elsewhere, most Hollywood studios have largely shied away from targeting individual pirates with lawsuits. The same cannot be said about a relatively small subset of companies, who are very happy to target thousands of them worldwide, demanding cash settlements in lieu of a drawn-out court battle. LHF Productions, one of the companies behind the blockbuster movie 'London Has Fallen' is one such company and over the years has filed lawsuits against alleged pirates in both the United States and Europe. In the former, the company has enjoyed some success but a case that has just gone all the way in the US, without the defendant mounting even a basic defense, hasn't gone exactly to plan. Multiple Defendants Targeted in a Utah Court Early 2017, LHF Productions filed a lawsuit against 30 alleged pirates in a Utah court, claiming they downloaded and shared London Has Fallen using BitTorrent. The case has rolled on for more than three years, with various defendants removed from the action after appearing to reach settlement agreements with LHF. The details of these settlements are private but one defendant, named as Amanda Steel, hasn't played ball from the start. Mounting no defense, the alleged pirate could have faced a huge damages award but this week, in an order handed down by District Judge David Nuffer, Steel got off quite lightly. Plaintiffs Demanded $10,000 in Damages, Judge Says No After failing to respond to the lawsuit, Steel could've been on the hook for $150,000 in statutory damages, in theory at least. In the event, LHF put in a demand for a default judgment of $10,000 as well as a permanent injunction but the Judge wasn't happy with that lowered figure either. The judgment reveals that the Judge was satisfied that a default was warranted in this case and accepted the plaintiff's allegations that the infringement was willful. This meant that Steel was facing a potential damages award of between $750 and $150,000, at the Judge's discretion. LHF argued that its $10,000 demand was reasonable and at a level that would deter future infringement. The company also cited five cases from other jurisdictions where that amount was deemed acceptable to the courts. For example, one case dating back to 2012 saw the defendant hit with $1.5m in damages for pirating 10 movies. However, Judge Nuffer said that in that matter, no findings or conclusions were officially entered on file, other than the allegations and default. Another case two years later, where a default judgment of $10,000 was awarded for infringement of a single movie, was deficient in the same regard. The Judge went to state that in the cited cases, the courts were willing to grant the requested amount in statutory damages, provided they did not reach the statutory maximum. He concluded that was likely due to the plaintiffs being unchallenged by the defaulted defendants. Describing the cases as lacking in "meaningful analysis", the Judge concluded that along with several other similar cases between 2012 and 2017, they were "not persuasive." Other Courts have Awarded Substantially Less Than $10,000 Outside of the cases cited by LHF, the Judge noted that some courts had developed and applied factors that led to greater consistency in statutory damages awards against defaulted defendants. A Malibu Media case in 2014, for example, awarded $750 on the basis that the plaintiff provided very little factual detail regarding the defendant's actions. Other cases shared similar traits. In his decision, Judge Nuffer decided to apply six factors previously outlined in a 2016 case involving Malibu Media; whether the defendant was the original seeder, whether the defendant profited or saved money from the infringement, the plaintiff's actual losses, whether the damages amount would result in a "windfall" for the plaintiff, the deterrent effect of the damages, and the defendant's willfulness and intent. The Judge in this case weighed those same factors and determined that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the request for $10,000 in statutory damages was over the top. Judge Nuffer found that there was no evidence that Steel was an original seeder, no evidence relating to the number of users in the BitTorrent swarm, and no evidence showing how many people downloaded the file from the defendant's computer. On top, the Judge said it was reasonable to conclude that the only monetary gain made by the defendant was the money saved on renting or buying a copy of the movie and the losses for the plaintiff would've been the same amount. Given the above, $10,000 in damages would result in a windfall for the plaintiffs and at around 25 times the amount it would cost to rent or buy the movie, $750 would act as a deterrent. In respect of the defendant's intent, LHF provided inadequate evidence. "Ultimately, considering the relevant factors collectively, along with all the circumstances of this case, an award of the $750 statutory damages against Defendant is just," the Judge wrote in his order. "This award adequately serves the compensatory and punitive purposes of statutory damages to sanction Defendant and vindicates the statutory policy of discouraging future infringement. This award is also consistent with the nationwide trend in awarding minimum statutory damages against defaulted defendants." While the damages award is indeed relatively low, it is worth pointing out that the defendant is liable to pay LHF's costs and reasonable attorney's fees, which are yet to be decided. The memorandum decision and default judgment can be found here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. Tech Giants Want EU 'Safeguard' to Proactively Remove Pirated Content Ernesto Van der Sar, 31 Oct 08:55 AM Prominent tech companies such as Twitter, Facebook and Google, all respond to takedown notices, as they are legally required to do. Major copyright holder groups believe this is not enough. They have repeatedly called on these platforms to do more to curb online piracy. This is a controversial issue, as the EU Copyright Directive negotiations highlighted last year. The public at large fears that proactive measures such as automated upload filters will result in overblocking and restrictions of free speech. The leading Internet companies have been critical of upload filters as well but they are not against further action. Earlier this year industry group EDiMA, which represents Twitter, Facebook, Google, TikTok, Mozilla, and others, proposed a landmark Online Responsibility framework. Tackling Piracy With Proactive Algorithms With this framework, the tech giants propose to use algorithms to tackle illegal content including piracy, beyond what's currently required by law. The word 'filter' isn't mentioned specifically, but that's pretty much what you get when using algorithms proactively. The proposed framework refers to 'illegal' content and avoids the term copyright, but we have confirmed that anti-piracy measures are certainly covered. "The Online Responsibility Framework would facilitate proactive action by service providers against any and all illegal content, including copyrighted content," Siada El Ramly, Director General of EDiMA tells TorrentFreak. This week, EDiMA released a new paper as part of the plan. The group highlights that its members want to do more to tackle illegal content but stress that this is tricky under current EU law. "Online service providers want to do more to voluntarily and proactively remove illegal content from their services, and society wants the same. However, there are important barriers under the current regime which prevent them from doing so." Existing EU law requires online service providers to remove illegal content if they have actual knowledge of its presence. They are, however, not obliged to find and police all illegal content uploaded by users, which helps to prevent overblocking that can harm free speech. While the tech companies generally value free speech, this 'protection' of user rights now finds itself in the way. It makes it harder for online services to proactively remove pirated content, which they are eager to do. Safeguard Paves Way For Proactive Measures EDiMA, therefore, calls for a new legal safeguard that allows tech companies to use proactive measures, such as upload filters, without the risk of being held liable for having 'actual knowledge' of illegal content. "The association is calling for the introduction of a legal safeguard which would allow companies to take proactive actions to remove illegal content and activity from their services, without the risk of additional liability for those attempts to tackle illegal content," the group says. "Current EU rules lack this crucial provision, which has a chilling effect on service providers who want to do more to tackle illegal activity online." Actual Knowledge The term 'actual knowledge' is key here. The tech companies want to use algorithms to detect and remove illegal material, but they don't want this to constitute having 'actual knowledge,' which means that they can be held liable afterward. In the US this is not an issue because of the "good samaritan" principle and EDiMA now calls for a liability safeguard in the EU as well. "The Framework and the legal safeguards would complement the existing copyright directive by facilitating service providers making 'best efforts' to ensure that copyrighted material, for which no license was agreed, would not be available on their service," El Ramly tells us. "It would remove the disincentive that exists for service providers to find and remove this material, and instead encourage it." Automated Filters Are (not) a Problem EDiMA positions its framework as a great solution for all involved, including users, but the tone of their message is completely different from what we've seen in the past. Just a few months ago, many of the same companies that are part of EDiMA warned against the EU Copyright Directive as algorithms and upload filters may harm free speech. The EU proposal, however, makes clear that companies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok see proactive algorithmic actions – which can be translated to automated filters – as a good solution. Keeping User Rights in Mind EDiMA's proposal does keep the rights of users in mind as well. It stresses that its proposed framework still prohibits the requirement for a general monitoring obligation. In addition, people should have the right to appeal removals of their content. This appeals process should be transparent. Users have the right to know why something was removed and additional human reviews may be required. Also, while an appeal is pending, it should be possible to reinstate flagged material. "These specific safeguards will ensure that users have a meaningful way to get an explanation as to why their content was removed and to contest removals should they wish to do so," the proposal reads. "They will also ensure that service providers have clear and proactive policies in place when it comes to which content is allowed on their services, while fostering transparent dialogue with their users." Easing into The Copyright Directive? All in all, it is safe to say that the major tech companies do see a future for automated filters. Perhaps this shouldn't come as a surprise, as companies already widely use these today, including YouTube's Content-ID system. It appears that with EDiMA's Online Responsibility Framework and the extra "safeguards" the tech companies try to pave the way for a smooth implementation of the EU Copyright Directive, on their terms. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. ©2020 TorrentFreak | Office 21338 PO Box 4336 Manchester, North West M61 0BW United Kingdom Web Version   Preferences   Forward   Unsubscribe     Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company