Techdirt. Stories filed under "uploads" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories filed under "uploads"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Fri, 2 Nov 2012 09:37:00 PDT BitTorrent Uploader Ordered To Pay $1.5 Million After Not Showing Up In Court Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121102/02123320914/bittorrent-uploader-ordered-to-pay-15-million-after-not-showing-up-court.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121102/02123320914/bittorrent-uploader-ordered-to-pay-15-million-after-not-showing-up-court.shtml to pay $1.5 million for uploading 10 movies. Default judgments are basically what happens when the other party doesn't show up in court. Many judges will then enter a judgment against them, more or less accepting everything that the plaintiff says and asks for. Courts don't have to accept the plaintiff's claims in default judgment cases, but too many judges just rubberstamp such requests, and that seems to be the case here.

Unfortunately, copyright trolls will now use this ruling to threaten more people into paying up. They'll ignore that the facts here are a bit different than ordinary cases. Here, beyond it being a default judgment, the copyright holder, Flava Works (whose name you might recognize from another case where they haven't fared well) has additional evidence against Fisher. Apparently Flava Works watermarks files that paying customers access. In this case, Fisher was a paying customer who then took the works -- with watermarks intact -- and posted them online for others to download. So, there's significantly more evidence against Fisher, beyond just an IP address.

Even so, it's a bit disappointing that the judge simply accepted what Flava Works asked for in terms of the award. Flava Works justification for the $1.5 million figure is tremendously disingenuous:
Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for willful infringement of $1,500,000 for the willful infringements of 10 videos that were downloaded 3,449 times. Exhibit “E”. Defendant caused 3,449 infringements of the Plaintiff’s videos. Plaintiff is seeking the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per infringement. $150,000 times 3,449 infringements is over $517,000,000. Thus, Plaintiff, Flava Works, Inc.’s request for an award of $1,500,000 is very reasonable.
Except... Flava Works is being misleading. The statute on statutory damages (17 USC 504) makes it clear that statutory damages are to be awarded per work, not per infringement. So the whole point about 3,449 infringements and a possible award of $517 million is way outside of what the law actually says is allowed. Yes, others have tried this "per infringement" argument rather than "per work" before, most memorably in the Limewire case, where the judge outright rejected that request, noting that statutory damages are to be awarded per work infringed, not per infringement. In the end, the court in this case goes with $1.5 million, which is the upper bound for what it can really provide as statutory damages, so it doesn't appear that the court went beyond what was allowed, but hopefully it wasn't influenced by that ridiculous $517 million claim into thinking that $1.5 million "is very reasonable."

In all likelihood, as often happens, the fact that it was a default judgment situation led the judge to just go with $1.5 million -- the maximum possible amount under the law. The problem, of course, is that this number isn't "very reasonable" at all. It's way way out of line with the action. Even if we grant that 3,449 people downloaded the work, and each would have paid, say, $20 otherwise (to choose an arbitrarily high number) we're still talking less than $70,000. And that's even assuming that everyone who downloaded would have bought at such a ridiculously high price -- an obviously laughable assertion. In other words, while statutory damages don't need to relate to actual damages, it's not difficult to look at this and think that the award is still ridiculous, even if you feel that there's sufficient evidence to suggest Fisher did break the law.

And, once again, we're left with a situation that creates even less respect for copyright law. From the (one-sided) evidence presented by Flava Works, it certainly seems much more likely that Fisher broke the law, and as such I don't think there's any issue with him losing the lawsuit (though, as a default judgment we have no idea if he has a legitimate defense). But a $1.5 million award just seems so out of proportion to reality that the court really ought to have gone with something slightly more reasonable. Not that Flava Works will ever collect from Fisher, but it's doubtful anyone really cares about that. The whole point of this is to get the judgment on the books so that Flava Works and others can now use it on tons of others.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> default-judgment http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121102/02123320914 Mon, 2 Apr 2012 14:03:08 PDT Megaupload User Asks Court To Return The Legitimate Files He Uploaded To Megaupload Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120402/03423718322/megaupload-user-asks-court-to-return-legitimate-files-he-uploaded-to-megaupload.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120402/03423718322/megaupload-user-asks-court-to-return-legitimate-files-he-uploaded-to-megaupload.shtml fight about what happens to all of the content that was stored on Megaupload's servers. It's actually a case of strange bedfellows: the US government says they're done with the servers (which seems odd, since the content would appear to be evidence in a criminal case, but the feds seem to want it to disappear). Carpathia -- the hosing company spending $9,000 per day to hang onto the servers -- would like to stop having to pay that money. Megaupload wants to preserve it, saying that it will help it win its case. The MPAA wants to preserve it so that it might use the data to sue more people. And the EFF wants to save it because it notes that there's a lot of legitimate content there that people can't access any more.

To that end, the EFF has helped a guy in Ohio file a request with the court to preserve the data, noting that it's important to his business. The guy in question was filming school sports around Ohio and used Megaupload as a way to backup those files. Because of a hard drive crash just before the feds took down Megaupload, the guy has lost a bunch of his videos. As the EFF notes in its filing (pdf and embedded below):
It is one thing to take legal action against an alleged copyright infringer. It is quite another to do so at the expense of entirely innocent third parties, with no attempt to prevent or even mitigate the collateral damage.

That is what has happened here. When the government shut down Megaupload, it was one of the 100 most popular websites in the world, with reportedly 150 million registered users. One of those users, Kyle Goodwin, had recently started a business reporting on local high school sporting events across Ohio. In addition to backing up his files on a hard drive, Mr. Goodwin joined many others like him in placing his files on Megaupload’s servers, paying for a premium account, and taking advantage of the remote backup cloud-based system for storage and remote access to an unlimited number of files.
I'm still amazed that the feds went through with this takedown, rather than telling the MPAA to file a civil lawsuit for copyright infringement against Megaupload.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> megamess http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120402/03423718322 Wed, 21 Dec 2011 05:18:00 PST Guy Who Uploaded Early Version Of Wolverine, Which Appears Not To Have Hurt Movie At All, Gets 1 Year In Jail Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111220/18294817149/guy-who-uploaded-early-version-wolverine-which-appears-not-to-have-hurt-movie-all-gets-1-year-jail.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111220/18294817149/guy-who-uploaded-early-version-wolverine-which-appears-not-to-have-hurt-movie-all-gets-1-year-jail.shtml sentenced Gilberto Sanchez to one year in jail for daring to upload the "workprint" copy of the movie X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Morrow called his crime "very serious." We're still trying to figure out what the evidence is that his crime was serious. As we've discussed, the actual evidence suggests that the leak probably helped the movie at the box office rather than the other way around. Despite dreadful reviews, the movie massively outperformed a number of very similar movies with very similar target audiences (but much better reviews!). The fact that Sanchez uploaded a "workprint" version -- which left out many of the special effects makes it even more ridiculous. That's not going to be an adequate replacement, and many people who saw it would probably be intrigued to see the full film to see how they turn the workprint into the final version.

I still think that Fox missed a huge opportunity in its idiotic response to this leak. It could have acted cool about it, and said something like:
Hey Wolverine fans! We know that you're all looking forward to the release of the movie next month. We're excited too! By now you may have heard that an early totally unfinished version has been leaked online. It's missing a whole bunch of stuff -- including some amazing special effects -- and honestly, this version isn't a finished product at all. We think you'll get a much better overall experience by waiting for the full finished product, but we certainly understand that some of you just can't wait (trust us, we feel the same way!). If that's the case, please, feel free to check it out, but please remember that this isn't even close to the final version. If anything, think of this as a "behind-the-scenes" peek of just what a movie looks like before all the real "movie magic" gets put in there. If you do check it out, we hope you'll join us May 1st to check out the finalized version as well on the big screen the way we intended for you to see this awesome movie. It's just a month away!
Instead, it called in the FBI, who took time and resources away from things like fighting terrorism, to put this guy in jail for uploading a version of the film that wouldn't be a very good substitute, and which appears to have no negative impact on the box office whatsoever.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> punishment-=-crime? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111220/18294817149 Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:39:18 PST Upload 18 Songs In Russia... Face Six Years In Prison Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110121/09405712767/upload-18-songs-russia-face-six-years-prison.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110121/09405712767/upload-18-songs-russia-face-six-years-prison.shtml is now facing six years in prison. While it's true that Russia has (quite reasonably) argued that Vkontakte itself is not liable for uploads of others, just the fact that someone could be facing any jail time for simple uploading, let alone six years for basically an album's worth of materials seems way out of proportion to the "crime." It's things like this that make people respect copyright even less than they already do. When they see that someone is facing so much time in prison just for sharing less than 20 songs, it's the sort of thing that makes them realize the laws don't make any sense at all.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> punishment-not-fitting-the-crime http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110121/09405712767 Wed, 1 Dec 2010 13:46:00 PST YouTube Sensation Justin Bieber Blocked From Uploading His Own Music To YouTube By Copyright Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101201/12464012082/youtube-sensation-justin-bieber-blocked-uploading-his-own-music-to-youtube-copyright.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101201/12464012082/youtube-sensation-justin-bieber-blocked-uploading-his-own-music-to-youtube-copyright.shtml he was blocked from doing so thanks to Universal Music and YouTube's ContentID system. Google (correctly) pointed out that this is an issue between Bieber and his label, but like most normal folks, Bieber wasn't interested in understanding the intricacies of copyright law when all he wanted to do was upload his own damn video to YouTube. So, instead, he went and uploaded it to Facebook.

Now, to be clear, Universal is Bieber's label, and assuming he signed a recording deal like any standard recording deal, it does hold his copyrights. But this is the kind of screwed up situation you get when the entertainment industry works so hard to block various new and useful tools from sharing content. The people who want to use it for perfectly reasonable and legitimate uses get blocked (and pissed off).

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> bieber-fever http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101201/12464012082 Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:19:00 PST Amount Of Video Content Uploaded To YouTube Increasing At An Astounding Rate Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101113/16224811855/amount-of-video-content-uploaded-to-youtube-increasing-at-an-astounding-rate.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101113/16224811855/amount-of-video-content-uploaded-to-youtube-increasing-at-an-astounding-rate.shtml 35 hours of content uploaded every minute would suggest otherwise. To some extent, this seems to be a confusion over scale. Many (for good reason) simply can't comprehend just how much content is being uploaded -- and imagine having to do a full fact-based analysis of whether or not each bit of video violates copyright law. You'd have to employ more lawyers than the US government.

Of course, the other notable thing about the sheer amount of content being uploaded -- is that it's important to recognize what this is likely going to mean in terms of quality. There's no doubt, of course, that for most users, most of the videos being uploaded will be "crap." Content they're not interested in at all. Of course, that differs from individual to individual. A movie of a baby cooing may be "crap" to most, but it's beautiful content to that child's grandparents. It's all relative in certain ways.

However, as the amount of content uploaded grows, it's only natural that the amount of quality content for each individual will also grow, in absolute terms -- though not in percentage terms. Of course, critics will focus on the percentage of crap, rather than the absolute amount of quality. While it's true that "online-only" type shows may not be all that impressive yet (with a few notable exceptions), I think many people are underestimating how quickly we'll start to see much higher quality shows hit the tubeways rather than the airways...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> watch-it-all http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101113/16224811855 Mon, 8 Nov 2010 08:00:44 PST German Appeals Court Says Video Hosting Platform Not Liable For User Uploaded Videos Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101105/02052411735/german-appeals-court-says-video-hosting-platform-not-liable-for-user-uploaded-videos.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101105/02052411735/german-appeals-court-says-video-hosting-platform-not-liable-for-user-uploaded-videos.shtml YouTube liable for copyright infringement, for the actions of a user, uploading a Sarah Brightman song to the platform. As I noted at the time, this didn't make much sense at all, since there's simply no way for Google to know ahead of time whether or not the user has permission to upload a video. Putting the liability on the service provider is simply nonsensical. The week after that ruling came out, I actually was in Berlin, for Berlin Music Week/Popkomm/A2N, and led a session discussing the legal status of YouTube. It was quite interesting, and I talked with a lot of folks on all sides of the issue (some were... um... angrier than others). But one thing that I was told over and over again by folks is that there are some serious issues with German copyright law, which considers third party liability a perfectly normal thing (and demonstrating how ridiculous this is, one audience member angrily read aloud some incendiary comments -- one of which insulted Germans -- from Techdirt and told me I was liable for it under German law, and then demanded to know why I hadn't taken it down).

However, thankfully, it appears that not every court in Germany feels that this is what the law says, or that this is acceptable. Apparently, a few years back, the very same court that issued the YouTube/Sarah Brightman ruling also issued a similar ruling against a local video hosting site called Sevenload, saying that it was liable for infringing videos uploaded by users. However, it appears that the appeals court has now reversed that decision, and ruled that Sevenload should not be liable. After the jump, I've embedded an English translation of the ruling, but the key point is that the court found that since Sevenload is not active in selecting the content, it makes no sense to hold the company liable. It also laughed off the argument from the rightsholder that since it wasn't known who uploaded the video, it could have been an employee of Sevenload. The court notes that this argument was brought up too late (i.e., not in the lower court decision) and that the plaintiff didn't offer any evidence to support such an assertion.

One part I liked in the ruling is that the court pointed out that it should be common sense that user-created content is not from the company in question:
Furthermore, from other services on the Internet, Internet users are used to areas being set up in which users can participate, in particular discussion forums. The sensible Internet user does not, as a rule, regard these areas as the site operator’s own content for which the operator intends to take responsibility.
The court also cites other cases which noted online auction providers are not expected to review every auction before it goes up, "as this would call the entire business model into question." Similarly, the court finds it silly that a video hosting service should need to inspect each video. While certainly no guarantee, this appeals court ruling appears to bode well for Google's appeal of the Sarah Brightman ruling.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> chalk-one-up-for-proper-application-of-liability http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101105/02052411735 Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:52:00 PDT Dirty Tricks: Anti-Piracy Group Caught Planting Evidence In Usenet Case Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101014/00544511421/dirty-tricks-anti-piracy-group-caught-planting-evidence-in-usenet-case.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101014/00544511421/dirty-tricks-anti-piracy-group-caught-planting-evidence-in-usenet-case.shtml to prove their legal point. FTD has argued, reasonably, that its members are not uploading content, but merely pointing out where it is available. BREIN argued, in response, that it was often the same users who would upload and point it out. Their evidence? A user who uploaded and pointed out the same movie. The problem? The guy who did that... works for BREIN. That sounds like planting evidence, a tactic law enforcement is sometimes seen to employ -- but BREIN is a private organization. Apparently, BRIEN is so closely tied to Dutch law enforcement that they seem to think they're part of it -- even going so far as to copy some law enforcement abuses.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> that-doesn't-seem-right http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101014/00544511421 Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:46:00 PST Proposal In Italy Would Require Gov't Authorization To Upload Any Video Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100118/0311057792.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100118/0311057792.shtml absolutely ridiculous anti-internet policies. Some have claimed that much of this comes from the fact that current Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi owns a lot of the mainstream media outlets in the country, and the lack of control over the internet bothers him and his party -- which could explain why they use almost any opportunity to lash out at the internet. To make matters worse, there seems to be particular confusion over things like YouTube, leading to the ongoing lawsuit that could sentence Google execs to jailtime for not removing a video fast enough (Google took the video down within a couple hours of being alerted to it). Then there's the politician who tried to file lawsuits against thousands of YouTube commenters.

So perhaps it shouldn't come as a surprise that politicians in Italy are proposing that all web video in the country must first be authorized by the Communications Ministry (found via Slashdot). Officially, Italian officials say that they're just implementing an EU directive on how to deal with product placement, but others note that this clearly goes way beyond that, with many seeing Berlusconi trying to stomp out online video competition to his media holdings.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> media-controls http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100118/0311057792 Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:54:03 PDT Digiprotect Admits It Shares Files Just To Find People To Demand Settlement Money From Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090831/0250256053.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090831/0250256053.shtml putting their own content online to see who downloaded it, and then suing them. In that post, we mentioned a post from last year, about one of the companies that's been hired to track down file sharers, DigiProtect, and how its contract seems to suggest this is exactly what the company does. After that came out, there was some talk about how that contract clause really was only used to make sure the company had the right to investigate infringement. However, the company now appears to be quite forward in admitting that it puts files online specifically to catch downloaders:
"We get the legal rights from the companies to distribute these movies to stores, and with these rights we can sue illegal downloaders. Then we take legal action in every country possible, concentrating on the places where such action will be profitable."
Of course, this seems questionable on a variety of levels. First, if it's getting the distribution rights to the content, then the distribution is authorized, and not infringing. Second, DigiProtect makes it quite clear that its focus is on figuring out the most profitable way to do this -- not the best way to cut down on infringement. The company apparently doesn't pay anyone on a fixed salary, but everyone shares in a cut of whatever is "collected." In other words, the program is not at all about stopping unauthorized file sharing, but figuring out the best way to profit from sending threat letters to people. The company even admits that the numbers it demands from people, and the numbers used in lawsuits have nothing to do with actual damages, but are entirely about what they think is mostly likely to get them paid. That sounds an awful lot like the what most people call extortion.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> well,-look-at-that http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090831/0250256053 Thu, 28 May 2009 11:03:48 PDT New Law In Korea Means Google Bans The Uploading Of Music On Any Blog Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090528/0226545039.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090528/0226545039.shtml Google is now forbidding the uploading of any music files to avoid liability and possible shut down under the law (the law is a three strikes law that doesn't just apply to users, but to sites that the users use) (found via Techmeme). Lucas Gonze does a good job laying out the damage this causes:
The problem is not the freedom to use copyrighted content. I don't know of any such freedom. The problem is the right to play.

A guitar teacher will be unable to post lessons, and a guitar student will be unable to post homework. Two musicians working together at a distance will be unable to share unfinished multitracks. An unsigned classical quartet will be unable to post samples of their work. Only the tiny few who work on commercially published recordings will still be able to be heard, and even only the small proportion of their recordings that are completed commercial works will be heard.

Most musicians are amateurs with no financial interest in copyright. The proportion of amateurs to professionals is so overwhelming that the word "musician" is a synonym for "amateur." Whenever copyright is wielded on behalf of the professionals in a way that makes it harder for amateurs to make music, it is hurting musicians.
Oh, and don't forget, the entire reason why South Korea is suddenly putting in place draconian, self-damaging, protectionist, copyright policies is because the entertainment industry went on a huge lobbying campaign claiming that South Korea was a haven for piracy, and then had the US gov't include requirements for much more stringent copyright laws in a free trade agreement -- despite the fact it was about the opposite of free trade. The entire purpose wasn't free trade, but protectionism of the US entertainment industry. Soon after that passed, we noted that it would require shutting down any service that permitted unauthorized reproduction... and we're seeing the impact of that now.

South Korea has been a leader in internet technologies. It had real broadband (both wired and wireless) to nearly every home well before almost every other country. As such, it has a thriving internet industry... but it has also had a thriving entertainment industry made up of execs who embraced the internet. Folks like JY Park, who recognizes that selling music directly is the past, but by embracing that fact, is building a media empire. But, of course, the folks back in Hollywood don't want to compete and don't want to change... so they got the US gov't to force South Korea to put in place these ridiculous copyright laws that help them and harm pretty much everyone else.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> life-without-safe-harbors http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090528/0226545039 Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:42:00 PDT Musician Called A Copyright Violator On MySpace For Uploading Her Own Music Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090324/2059174244.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090324/2059174244.shtml her account flagged as a copyright violator after she tried to upload five or six songs from her own self-produced CD. She's emailed MySpace's support email... and seems to have heard absolutely nothing back weeks later. But, no, overly aggressive copyright enforcement doesn't hurt anyone, right?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> hurray-for-copyright http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090324/2059174244 Tue, 11 Nov 2008 02:11:30 PST Blogger Who Uploaded GNR Album Pleads Guilty, Accepts Deal Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081110/1939572792.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081110/1939572792.shtml Chinese Democracy, and who was then arrested has apparently agreed to a plea bargain in the case. Prosecutors had already dropped the charges from a felony to a misdemeanor, and the plea deal probably means he'll get off without too much punishment -- but the whole thing still seems fairly ridiculous. It's not at all clear why the FBI wasted taxpayer money chasing down a fan who simply helped promote the music. In the end, it seems like GNR basically got tax-payer funded promotion for its latest album, while causing significant stress in the life of the guy who was in the middle of all of this. What a joke.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> still-ridiculous http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081110/1939572792 Mon, 3 Nov 2008 01:32:05 PST MySpace And MTV Catch Up To YouTube On Ad Spamming Uploaded Videos Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081103/0048442708.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081103/0048442708.shtml random takedowns, and in fact Google's program has been very successful. So it should come as no surprise that others, including MySpace and MTV are about to offer the same deal. What's unclear, though, is why some are claiming that this is revolutionary. Seeing as YouTube has been doing it for a year, it's difficult to see how there's much to get excited about here.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> this-is-revolutionary? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081103/0048442708 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:57:50 PDT Woman Fined Nearly $30,000 For Sharing Pinball Game Software With Friends Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080820/0316492043.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080820/0316492043.shtml sued over 100 people for supposedly file sharing a silly pinball video game. As we noted, Davenport Lyons has been accused of some questionable practices, such as sending out threatening pre-settlement letters based on extremely faulty evidence from Logistep. Various other countries in Europe have sanctioned lawyers for relying on the same evidence that Davenport Lyons uses, and both Italy and Switzerland have said that Logistep's method of identifying file sharers is illegal -- but that hasn't stopped the firm from continuing its efforts.

And now it's announcing a victory. A woman that it sued has been fined about $30,000 for file sharing that same pinball game. Apparently, UK courts have no sense of making sure the punishment fits the crime. Everyone involved notes that the woman wasn't sharing the game for commercial purposes, but wanted a few friends to be able to play it as well. For that she now needs to pay $30,000?

Oddly, Davenport Lyons used this news to announce that it was suing 100 people for sharing this game... even though it had already announced that last month. Unfortunately, the reporter for the Daily Mail in the UK only takes Davenport Lyons' side of things. The report quotes a lawyer talking about all the evils and losses from file sharing, without any quotes from those who know those numbers are bogus -- and never once questioning why it's reasonable for someone sharing a simple cheap game with a few friends to be fined $30,000. The reporter mentions Logistep, but not the troubles it's faced in other countries (or the trouble lawyers who rely on its evidence have faced). It's time reporters stopped simply parroting this story, which is based on faulty premises, faulty numbers and faulty evidence.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> punishment-fits-the-crime?!? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080820/0316492043 Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:13:32 PDT UK Law Firm Tries Suing As Many People As Possible For File Sharing Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080714/1551101673.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080714/1551101673.shtml anyone that it suspects of being involved in file sharing, no matter how flimsy the evidence it has. In face, Davenport Lyons relies on the increasingly questionable evidence provided by the firm Logistep, whose evidence is so shaky that the company has been found to have broken the law in both Italy and Switzerland. And, oh yeah, another lawyer who relied on questionable Logistep evidence has been banned from practicing law in France for six months, after the Paris Bar realized that this questionable "evidence" was being used more for extortion-like "pre-settlement" letters that demand money to avoid getting taken to court.

However, that's not stopping Davenport Lyons, who has found the business to be so lucrative that it wants more people it can threaten. It's now suing over 100 people it believes shared a pinball video game. Once again, you can rest assured that this has little to do with the actual legal merits of the case, and quite a lot to do with simply trying to frighten as many people as possible into paying up on those "pre-settlement" letters. For example, there are numerous misstatements made by Davenport Lyons, including the false claim that these lawsuits are about downloading, rather than uploading. In fact, all the lawsuits are about whether or not someone uploaded the game -- but the lawyer notes: "There is no difference between stealing a DVD from a high street retailer and downloading it from a peer-to-peer network."

Of course, the lawyer is also wrong there. There is a tremendous difference between stealing a DVD from a retailer and downloading it from a P2P network: most notably that in the first case, something is missing and in the second it is not. That doesn't mean it's not infringing, but the two things are quite different. The same lawyer goes on to claim that video games can't continue being made if there is widespread file sharing -- despite evidence from some video game companies that embracing file sharing as a way to gain attention does wonders.

Reality, though, doesn't keep the money coming in. Expect plenty more lawsuits from Davenport Lyons, as the company claims that a recent legal decisions means ISPs need to start handing over names of suspected file sharers so it can send out its nastygrams in short order.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> is-there-a-guinness-record-on-this? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080714/1551101673 Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:41:00 PDT If You Block Your P2P App From Sharing Files, Are You Still Guilty Of Making Files Available? Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080714/1444301672.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080714/1444301672.shtml downloading unauthorized copyright-covered works, but in uploading or sharing them. Amusingly, there are some legal experts who point out that a clear reading of copyright law in the US actually suggests that uploading is perfectly legal, while downloading may not be. Either way, the entertainment industry has focused on going after people for uploading (specifically: distributing) unauthorized materials. And that has resulted in an ongoing legal debate over the question of whether or not simply making something available is the equivalent of distribution under the law. There have been a few court rulings on either side of this question, but the trend seems to be leaning towards the fact that making available is not the equivalent of distributions. That would be a problem for the recording industry, as it would then need to prove actual unauthorized distribution, which could be quite difficult.

That said, in one case, it may be facing an even bigger uphill battle. That's because it charged someone with distributing/uploading content, despite the fact that he'd modded his file sharing software to not allow any uploads. It's difficult to see how they can get him for even "making available" given that he set up the software in a way to not actually make anything available at all. But, of course, given how much the entertainment industry relies on flimsy evidence, it's probably no surprise that it didn't even check to see if this guy was making any files available before charging him with doing so.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> it's-going-to-need-to-in-this-case http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080714/1444301672