TorrentFreak's Latest News

Reddit Asks Court to Protect Users Right to Anonymous Speech in Piracy CaseErnesto Van der Sar, 07 Jul 12:24 PM Every day, millions of people from a

Reddit Asks Court to Protect Users Right to Anonymous Speech in Piracy Case Ernesto Van der Sar, 07 Jul 12:24 PM Every day, millions of people from all over the world submit posts, comments, and other content to Reddit. Most discussions are relatively harmless but, every now and then, users unwittingly incriminate themselves, totally unaware of the potential ramifications their writings can have offline. When something's clearly wrong, the authorities can take action. Last year, governments and law enforcement sent more than 1,000 information requests to Reddit, seeking user details. In addition, Reddit was served with 277 search warrants and 582 subpoenas targeted at users of the platform. Reddit complies with most of these information requests, but not all. Earlier this year the company objected when a group of filmmakers requested the personal details of several users as part of an ongoing lawsuit against Internet provider RCN. Filmmakers vs. Reddit The filmmakers turned to Reddit after they found public comments that could help their case. As part of the RCN lawsuit, they identified several potentially relevant threads and requested a DMCA subpoena, ordering Reddit to identify the anonymous users. The Redditors in question discussed issues such as RCN's handling of copyright infringement emails. The filmmakers could use this information to their advantage, but only if they could obtain the identities of the commenters first. Reddit was unhappy with the subpoena, characterizing it as overbroad and more akin to a fishing expedition than regular evidence gathering. Reddit only handed over the details of one user whose comment mentioned RCN, denying other 'less relevant' ones, while citing the users' First Amendment right to anonymous speech. The court eventually agreed with this defense, concluding that Redditors' First Amendment right to anonymous speech outweighs the interest of rightsholders. According to U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, the filmmakers have other options to obtain this type of information, including through RCN itself. Another ISP, Another Reddit Subpoena Judge Beeler's ruling was a setback for the filmmakers but a few weeks ago they went to court again over a similar request. This time the request is part of their piracy liability lawsuit against Internet provider Grande, and singles out a new group of Redditors. Reddit refused to hand over the information directly which prompted another motion to compel that, once again, landed on Judge Beeler's desk. According to the filmmakers, they have no other options to secure the evidence which, among other things, includes comments on Grande's handling of copyright notices. The filmmakers stated that they already requested and received the personal details of 118 frequently pirating subscribers from Grande. However, contacting these people didn't yield the desired results. Facing a deadline, they chose to go after the Reddit users instead. Reddit Objects In a replay of moves, Reddit has just responded in court, pointing out that their users' right to anonymous speech should be protected. The company argues that the filmmakers still fail to make a convincing argument. As in the earlier case, Reddit users are not an "irreplaceable source" of evidence. "Weeks ago, this Court denied a nearly identical motion by these same Plaintiffs," Reddit writes in its opposition brief. [R]ather than returning with better facts capable of meeting the applicable First Amendment standard, Plaintiffs here offer worse facts–expressly acknowledging that they have no need to identify these Reddit users at all." The filmmakers seek information to show that Grande failed to properly implement a repeat infringer policy and that this failure acted as a draw to potential subscribers. In the earlier RCN case, Reddit and the court noted that the rightsholders could obtain this information directly from RCN subscribers. This is also the case in the Grande lawsuit, Reddit argues. In fact, the company notes that the filmmakers' statements to the court show that this is possible. "[U]nlike in RCN, the Plaintiffs here have already successfully done exactly what Reddit suggested Plaintiffs do there. Plaintiffs have already obtained from Grande identifying information for 118 of Grande's 'top 125 pirating IP addresses'. "That concession dooms the Motion; Plaintiffs cannot possibly establish that unmasking these six Reddit users is the only way for Plaintiffs to generate evidence necessary for their claims when they have already succeeded in pursuing an alternative and better way," Reddit adds. In their motion to compel, the filmmakers said that they already contacted some Grande subscribers, which didn't result in the desired information. However, these subscribers were not subpoenaed, which is a step the filmmakers could take before going after Redditors. "While Plaintiffs claim to have 'been sending letters to most of the subscribers of the 118 IP addresses,' Plaintiffs conspicuously fail to state that they have subpoenaed those subscribers," Reddit writes in a footnote. Potential Defendant? In addition to five Reddit 'witnesses' who made general piracy-related comments about Grande, the filmmakers also singled out a 12-year-old comment from the user "xBROKEx", who is a potential defendant because they specifically mentioned having pirated the movie The Expendables. This comment could, in theory, provide evidence for a direct copyright infringement lawsuit. However, Reddit believes that without arguing a proper claim against the defendant, this user should not be unmasked either. "Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a prima facie case of copyright infringement against xBROKEx based on their mention of 'the expendables' over twelve years ago when the statute of limitations for copyright infringement is three years," Reddit notes. All in all, Reddit believes that the filmmakers have an even worse case this time around so the company asks Judge Beeler to protect anonymous speech as it did before. — A copy of Reddit's opposition brief in response to the filmmakers' motion to compel is available here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. Legalizing All Movie Piracy Bad For Russia, Media Giants Inform Parliament Andy Maxwell, 06 Jul 11:21 PM For a country that regularly claims to be at war with the United States, Russian lawmakers appear to have plenty of time to discuss how its citizens will continue to be entertained by mostly U.S. content. Over the last 18 months, various ideas and proposals have leaned toward limiting or even nullifying Western entertainment companies' intellectual property rights in response to their withdrawal from the Russian market. Until more recently, these obviously damaging proposals were met with relatively mild cautionary language, even from traditionally vocal anti-piracy groups. Whether the response to a bill submitted to the State Duma earlier this year represents changing times is unclear, but Russian rightsholders now insist that allowing everyone to pirate Western content will end up damaging business in Russia. Federal Law No. 46-FZ The bill submitted in April seeks amendments to the provisions of Federal Law No. 46-FZ of March 8, 2022. Federal Law No. 46-FZ (excerpt/translated) In respect of intellectual property, the law currently references the application of the "international principle" of exhaustion of rights. Using content that has been legally put into circulation in any other country of the world is not an infringement of exclusive rights, the law continues, adding that parallel importation of goods can be carried out without authorization from the rightsholder. "This tool is used by most states in the world to prevent anti-competitive practices and abuses of market position by right holders," the text concludes (pdf). Bill Demands More Than Parallel Imports When Western companies decided to stop doing business with Russia in response to its invasion of Ukraine, that amounted to an abuse of their position, Russia argues. As a result, Russia no longer feels bound by licensing restrictions and will source the same content from elsewhere, whenever that's required. The bill submitted in April seeks significant amendments to Law No. 46-FZ that would allow Western content with exclusive foreign rights to be translated, reproduced/copied and publicly distributed with zero permission needed from the rightsholders. The only remotely positive aspect is that any use of those works would need to be reported to a Russian collection society with the authority to calculate how much is owed, collect the funds, and then distribute an unknown percentage of those funds to rightsholders. By allowing the 'buyer' of content to set the terms and conditions of sale and eliminating negotiations on price, the proposal turns business norms upside down. TV Giants and Legal Streaming Platforms Unite Opposition to the bill inside Russia now has the support of TV companies and legal streaming platforms. A letter sent by the powerful industry group Media Communications Union, which represents the rights of companies including Gazprom Media, Channel One, and Rostelecom, informed the head of the State Duma Committee on Economic Policy of their concerns. As reported by Kommersant, the letter warns that the widespread use of copyrighted works without proper authorization "violates the interests of specialized market participants" and may lead to the "termination of their activities." "It also creates the risk of using this mechanism to legalize and popularize pirated resources, which will negatively affect domestic producers and owners of exclusive rights to content," the letter adds. Other Options, All Bad Other proposals reported recently include Russia unblocking previously blocked pirate sites, providing they don't offer content shown legally by local online streaming platforms or available to view in cinemas. Amendments to the Civil Code adopted in the first reading by the State Duma last month would allow multiple violations of multiple rightsholders' rights to be considered as one violation, if they were committed all at once or over a short period of time, using one or multiple methods. Local rightsholders are reportedly unhappy with the plan, according to a Kommersant source. "The concept of a single infringement will greatly simplify the lives of pirates," the source said. "For example, a pirate has made a website and posted a thousand films, books and music from different rights holders. There is a single economic goal here – to make money from advertising on the site." There are also fears that the amendments could lead to minimal damages awards of just 100,000 rubles ($1,100) Media Communications Union Makes Suggestions The members of the Media Communications Union have some proposals relating to Western content. It appears that while everyone pirating is a bad idea, more limited use centered around a limited number of companies may be acceptable. In broad terms, the industry group believes that Russian companies that previously concluded licensing agreements with foreign copyright holders should be given the right to decide whether that content is made available or not. "That is, as long as the film is on at least one platform, it is forbidden to 'pirate' it," the insider clarified. The media companies also propose that access to Western content should not be universal; companies that had licensing agreements in force on February 224, 2002, should receive priority consideration. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. Are you looking for a VPN service? TorrentFreak sponsor NordVPN has some excellent offers. ©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