TorrentFreak's Latest News

Court Protects Redditors' Right to Anonymous Speech in Piracy CaseErnesto Van der Sar, 01 May 12:24 PM Every day, millions of people from all over t

Court Protects Redditors' Right to Anonymous Speech in Piracy Case Ernesto Van der Sar, 01 May 12:24 PM Every day, millions of people from all over the world submit posts, comments, and other content to Reddit. In many cases, discussion comments are read and soon forgotten but several old threads were brought back to life recently as part of a piracy liability case. Redditors as Evidence The comments in question were picked up by Kerry Culpepper, a copyright attorney who leads several piracy lawsuits against Internet providers on behalf of independent film companies. In the case at hand, the makers of The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard, London Has Fallen, Hellboy and other films, accuse Internet provider RCN of not doing enough to stop subscribers from pirating on its network. Instead of terminating the accounts of persistent pirates, the ISP turned a blind eye, the filmmakers argued. The main lawsuit was filed at a federal court in New Jersey and the parties are in the process of gathering evidence. As part of this quest, the filmmakers stumbled upon responses from nine Reddit users, whose comments are potentially relevant to the dispute. For example, a comment from Redditor "ChikaraFan" noted the following regarding RCN's handling of copyright infringement emails: "Seems extremely rare if ever. RCN seems fairly lax…no data caps. I looked up before I switched and had little trouble." Reddit doesn't usually give up the identities of its users. However, in February the movie companies obtained a subpoena asking Reddit to share the personal details of nine users, including relevant IP-address logs. Reddit Objects Reddit was unhappy with the subpoena, characterizing it as overbroad. According to Reddit's lawyers, the subpoena was more akin to a fishing expedition than regular evidence gathering. As such, Reddit only handed over the details of one user whose comment mentioned RCN, denying other 'less relevant' ones, citing the users' First Amendment right to anonymous speech. This refusal to hand over user data triggered the filmmakers to file a motion to compel. Since the subpoena was issued in California, the motion was handled there as well, separate from the main lawsuit. The case was heard last week by U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler via a virtual hearing over Zoom. Since Reddit previously handed over information relating to one user, the identities of eight others was at stake. From the get-go, the Judge said that she was inclined to deny the motion to compel, thereby protecting the Redditors' right to anonymous speech. The film companies' attorney, Kerry Culpepper, was still allowed to present his arguments. Culpepper argued that the comments are highly relevant to show that RCN didn't have a proper repeat infringer policy. In addition, they could help to show that RCN can monitor its subscribers and that its lax policies acted as a draw to potential customers. As the only party able to identify the commenters, Reddit's role is essential, the filmmakers' attorney said. Without Reddit's help, obtaining this information simply isn't possible. Anonymous Speech Outweights Rightholders' Interests While Judge Beeler acknowledged the potential interest the filmmakers have in the user data, in this case the Redditor's right to remain anonymous outweighs the interests of the rightsholders. According to the court, the comments are too general and, for some users, it is not even clear that they're RCN customers. When added to the fact that the subscribers are not suspected of any wrongdoing themselves, the balance tips in favor of the Reddit users. "The court denies the motion to compel and quashes the subpoena because on this record, the First Amendment bars the discovery," Judge Beeler writes in her order, issued shortly after the hearing. Other Ways to Get Information The court's standard for review was whether the Redditors' comments were directly and materially relevant to a core claim or defense. Judge Beeler doesn't believe that's the case here, as there are other ways for the filmmakers to back up their claims against RCN. For example, through discovery, the plaintiffs can obtain information about RCN's repeat infringer policy and data caps from the company itself. The above-mentioned comment from the user ChikaraFan was the "closest call" according to Judge Beeler. It makes sense for the filmmakers to want this evidence but Reddit doesn't have to share the user's personal details. "ChikaraFan was apparently drawn to RCN's lack of 'data caps,' which is another technical issue that can be illuminated by discovery from RCN itself," Judge Beeler writes. "Even as to the issue of customers being drawn to RCN, the question here is whether the information is available from 'any' other source. It is implausible that this one (First Amendment protected) user is an irreplaceable source." The denial means that the identity of the eight Reddit users won't be shared with the filmmakers. While these users aren't accused of any wrongdoing, not being dragged into a copyright dispute through the side door is likely to be a relief. — A copy of U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler order on the motion to compel is available here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. Why Linus Tech Tips' Pirate Box Video Got 2.3m Views & Official PSAs Get Ignored Andy Maxwell, 30 Apr 01:13 PM Online piracy has always been linked to computer viruses and similar badware but for years that connection was rarely exploited by groups hoping to deter piracy. KaZaA and LimeWire users needed no reminder, of course. Several years ago, TorrentFreak was reliably informed that anti-piracy groups were preparing to push the piracy/malware nexus into the mainstream. What followed was a series of reports and PSAs that focused on 'concerns' that pirates were being infected with malware, but skipped over important details such as 'where' and 'how'. "Don't use pirate sites," was the best advice on offer; security software was never mentioned. Why This Type of Messaging Fails To be fair, issuing advice on how to safely navigate the high seas would've been counterproductive to the point of encouraging piracy. But more fundamental than that, almost all campaigns and press releases relied on bare statements about malicious ads, malware, phishing, fraud, identity theft and banking trojans, accompanied by zero supporting evidence. In internet speak it was "Trust me, bro" versus "Pics or it didn't happen." The pics never arrived and only reluctantly do people trust random strangers, even those who want to prevent pirates' houses burning down. At least in the early days, we tried to encourage those making the claims to back them up. Letting people see how malware works didn't have to amount to technical piracy advice, but there was always a chance they might see those pushing malware on them in new light. Lecturing people and expecting compliance often leads to immediate pushback. Educating people helps them to make their own choices and, if all goes well, they may come along voluntarily. Don't Tell People What To Think – Show Them A video published by Linus Tech Tips earlier this month is a great example of how to reach out to people. In just two weeks it's been viewed over 2.3 million times, with viewers not only learning why cheap piracy-configured boxes should be avoided, but also being shown exactly why. But first, Linus gets to break the ice in a way no anti-piracy executive would dare. After describing himself as part of the Napster generation (he would've been around 14 at the time) he implies that he may have first hand experience of the topic in hand. "[A]s part of the Napster generation I may or may not have dabbled myself at some point. No judgment," he says. "However, it's important to remember that the kinds of folks who are willing to help you circumvent copyright law tend to be the same kinds of folks who don't care about other laws either. Like privacy or data collection laws. To which you might think, 'come on, Linus, how bad could it be?'." At this point Linus shows the viewer just how bad things can get with some of the most popular Android boxes sold on platforms including Amazon and eBay. Anyone who peruses the device sections on either of those sites will have seen at least one of the examples in the video. Rest assured, the video won't help their sales moving forward. Just the Facts, No Preaching, No Lecturing While Linus is in the fortunate position of not being in a job that pays him to tell people to stop pirating, he clearly understands his audience. He also sticks to the topic in hand. "And I'm not gonna stand here and tell you to pirate or not to pirate. I'm just gonna tell you to practice safe computing, and this ain't it," he says. The video was well received and while it isn't an anti-piracy commercial, the end result is effortlessly more effective, based in fact, and achieved without drama. It also has 5,000+ comments, suggesting excellent viewer engagement, something the professionals simply cannot match. Two videos (1,2) produced by the United States' StreamSafely campaign released in 2020 have around 2,500 combined. To be clear, that's 2,500 views overall – the videos have a grand total of zero comments. To be fair they're not as bad as those figures suggest but without context they are dry and without a slither of supporting evidence, they're ultimately meaningless. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. ©2023 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