Navigation

Archive | File Sharing

Pirate Bay in court in Sweden, once again

By on March 21, 2016 in Copyright, File Sharing, Intellectual Property, Sweden, TPB

Today Svea Hovrätt (a regional court in the Swedish three-level court system) began the case about the domain names piratebay.se and thepiratebay.se. The government (represented by public prosecutor Fredrik Ingblad) is making its’ case to seize the two domains. The case also concerns the domain name administrator – Stiftelsen för internetinfrastruktur (IIS) – as a possible accomplice to copyright infringements.

Last spring the district court of Stockholm decided that Pirate Bay founder Fredrik Neij no longer has the right to the domain names. However, it did not seize them for the government, but left them in the care of IIS. Nor did it find that IIS had been part of criminal activities.

An interesting point is if a domain name can be deemed to be a tool for criminal activities — or if it’s just a name, an address.

The trial will go on for two days and a verdict will be read in a few weeks time.

Link to a Swedish IDG article about the case »

/ HAX

0

ECJ to rule that providing open internet connection is not a crime?

By on March 17, 2016 in Copyright, ECJ, EU, File Sharing, Intellectual Property, Internet

In a recommendation the Advocate General to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) states that business who provide free, open Wi-Fi to customers should not be responsible for copyright infringements carried out on their network.

But there might still be national restrictions. Glyn Moody at ArsTechnica:

However, the Advocate General ruled that national courts may issue injunctions against the provider of free Wi-Fi services in the case of copyright infringement provided they are “particular, effective, proportionate and dissuasive”; and “that they are aimed at bringing a specific infringement to an end, and do not entail a general obligation to monitor.” Moreover, courts must strike a fair balance between “freedom of expression and information and the freedom to conduct business, as well as the right to the protection of intellectual property.”

The Advocate General goes on saying that there need to be no obligation to secure an open network with a password. It might even be possible that a shop or a café providing open Wi-Fi might be covered by the mere conduit principle. (Under the mere conduit principle of the EU E-Commerce Regulations of 2002, network operators have no legal liability for the consequences of traffic delivered via their networks.)

Now it is up to the ECJ to draw its final conclusions. But the court normally rules in line with the Advocate Generals recommendations.

This is good news for an open, creative society where people work and use their devices in public establishments. Providing free internet connection should not be a crime.

ArsTechnica: Free Wi-Fi providers not liable for user’s piracy, says top EU court lawyer »

/ HAX

0

IPRED 2 in the works — have your say

By on February 25, 2016 in Big Entertainment, Copyright, EU, File Sharing, Hacktivism, Intellectual Property, Internet, IPRED, Uncategorized

IPRED — the EU Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive — was highly criticised when introduced. It gave IPR holders wider rights to go after e.g. illegal filesharers than the police, skewing the legal system in favour of the industry. (But even then, IPRED has never been really effective.)

In 2014, the Italian EU presidency announced its’ plans to beef up IPRED. On this blog, I quoted the reaction from Brussels-based NGO EDRi on the matter…

“However, having established that the current legislative framework is not fit for purpose, the best thing that the Presidency can think of proposing is to expand and deepen the failed, not fit for purpose enforcement measures that are currently in force. The Italians apparently hope that, if they do the same thing over and over again, different results will be produced.”

But such objections do not discourage Brussels. The political process continues.

Preparing IPRED 2 the European Commission now has launched a consultation (normally being the first step for new or revised legislation). Once again EDRi explains it best…

“Injunctions, internet blocking, blackmailing of individuals accused of unauthorized peer-to-peer filesharing – the so-called IPRED Directive has been very controversial. Now, the European Commission has launched a consultation on the Directive (whose full name is Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRED) in the online environment).”

“The consultation is of great importance not only to those working on copyright or “intellectual property rights” in general, but in fact crucial to anyone using the Internet. This consultation covers to how private companies should or should not be involved in law enforcement online – for example by removing your online content in case it might include copyrighted material. It also covers the range of internet intermediaries that could or should be subject to legal obligations to undertake law enforcement activities.”

This consultation is open for everyone to respond to. And as political processes are easier to influence the earlier you get into them, this is an opportunity that should not be missed.

In order to make it easier for individuals to answer the consultation, EDRi has created an “answering guide” – an online tool with the European Commission’s questions and our analysis to guide your responses. The answering guide can be found here: http://youcan.fixcopyright.eu/limesurvey/index.php/829127?lang=en

Please get involved. Your reactions can shape the future of the Internet.

And a big thank you to EDRi for hacking the political system — analyzing, explaining and opening up the process for everyone to participate.

/ HAX

0

And the war continues…

By on February 10, 2016 in Big Entertainment, File Sharing, Intellectual Property, TPB

The streaming technology freshly embedded into The Pirate Bay is under fire from the Hollywood-backed anti-piracy outfit BREIN. Torrents-Time is an “illegal application” according to BREIN’s lawyer but in a response the group behind the software warns the Hollywood-funded group to back off or face criminal proceedings for extortion.

TorrentFreak: Hollywood Wants to Shut Down Pirate Bay’s Streaming Technology »

0

Pirate sites: To block out or not to block out?

By on November 27, 2015 in Big Entertainment, Copyright, EU, File Sharing, Freedom of Speech, Intellectual Property

Today the Swedish district court of Stockholm ruled that internet service providers (ISP:s) can not be forced to block out pirate sites like the Pirate Bay. (TorrentFreak» | Also in Swedish»)

But it’s still early days. Copyright holders are to appeal the verdict. However, it’s very unusual that Swedish lower courts take bold stands. This might indicate that the judicial system has found that there is a strong case against blocking.

Interestingly, yesterday the German federal court ruled in the opposite direction. (TorrentFreak» | Also in German»)

The key issue seems to be if an ISP can be considered a co-culprit of copyright infringement in relation to the EU Infosoc directive. Conflicting judgements in different member states indicate that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will have to address the issue. And this can happen soon as a Dutch court already has asked the ECJ for guidance in a similar case.

However, it is possible for a member state to have a stronger copyright protection than required in the EU directive. But this issue might also concern freedom of enterprise and freedom of speech. So there is a high level of uncertainty and confusion.

From a practical point of view, it is interesting to see that blocking out pirate sites has little or no effect on illegal filesharing. (Link 1» | Link 2»)

The bigger question is the principle that ISP:s are not responsible for what their customers are up to in their network (mere conduit). This is a well-established principle in the EU.

In comparison, telephone companies are not liable for what people might say on their phone lines; postal services are not liable for what people send in the mail; owners of roads are not liable for criminals driving around.

If ISP:s were to be responsible for their customers activities — they would have to police everything we do online. Everything. That would be practically extremely difficult and a fierce violation of privacy. (But proponents of mass surveillance often seem to see this as an opportunity to establish new points where to tap into public communications.)

/ HAX

0

Pirate Bay domains seized by Swedish court

By on May 19, 2015 in Big Entertainment, Copyright, File Sharing, Intellectual Property, Internet, Sweden

Today a Swedish district court decided that Pirate Bay founder Fredrik Neij no longer can control the domains piratebay.se and thepiratebay.se – as they have been used for “illegal activities”.

However – the court does not give the government control over the domains. They stay with the domain top level administrator, the Punkt.se foundation.

On the one hand, it is strange that domain names can be seized. It is like if a street adress would be seized, because of illegal activities carried out there.

On the other hand, it is interesting that the court does not accept the prosecutors demand for the domain names to be handed over to the Swedish government. This still gives top domain administrators some leverage – and indicates that they are not liable for how a domain is used.

But the most important lesson to be learned from todays verdict is that we need to build a decentralised system for domain names — where they cannot be seized or taken down.

/ HAX

Read more: Key Pirate Bay Domains Must Be Seized, Court Rules »

8

Big Entertainment and Big Media declaring war on VPN

By on April 18, 2015 in Big Business, Copyright, Democracy, File Sharing, Free Markets, Intellectual Property, Privacy, VPN

TorrentFreak reports from New Zeeland…

“A pair of Internet providers who defied TV company demands to switch off their VPN services will be sued in the coming days. CallPlus and Bypass Network Services face legal action from media giants including Sky and TVNZ for allowing their customers to use a VPN to buy geo-restricted content.”

This was somehow expected. The copyright industry is very annoyed when it comes to VPN services.

There is reason to believe that the New Zeeland cases will be the start of a series of similar court cases around the world. The entertainment and media industries are essentially multinational. Most likely, this is just a pilot case.

Once again Big Business wants to shut down legitimate Internet services, just to protect their outdated business models. But they can never win. Instead, they should accept and embrace the simple fact that the Internet provides one global media market.

It is ridiculous to believe that people all over the world would refrain from watching their favourite TV series and films if VPN services where to be shut down. It would only bring new life to traditional illegal file sharing.

One must remember that people using media services via VPN are not pirating. They are paying customers – only in another country. All Big Entertainment and Big Media might accomplish by going after VPN services is to turn these paying customers into non-paying pirates.

The fact that the copyright industry refuses to adopt to a global, connected market is nothing new. This seems to be a never ending story.

But VPN is not just about light entertainment. VPN is serious stuff. It is used by companies, organisations, governments and private individuals for security and privacy reasons. It is a way to get round censorship. It is a part of the toolbox that dissidents, opposition groups and activists  use to communicate securely.

There is no way Big Entertainment and Big Media should be allowed to shut down this important instrument of freedom, security and anonymity. Instead, they must learn to adapt to the real world market.

TorrentFreak: TV Companies Will Sue VPN Providers “In Days” »

/ HAX

0

Eternal fools to ban filesharers from flying?

By on April 1, 2015 in Big Brother, File Sharing, France, PNR

EDRi reports: French filesharers to be banned from flying?

A proposed European Directive threatens the ability of French filesharers to use airlines. The problem is a new attempt to adopt a Directive on the collection and storage of “passenger name record” (PNR) data. The European Commission’s plan is for air travellers’ data to be used for profiling individuals, to guess if they are involved in “terrorist offences and serious online crime”. A “serious crime” is defined as punishable by imprisonment for a “maximum period of at least three years”. In France, filesharing (like manslaughter and death threats) can be punished by a period of up to three years in prison, and so falls under the Directive’s definition of “serious crime”.

No, this is not an april fools joke. Read the rest of the story here… »

0

What will the world look like without the Pirate Bay?

By on December 10, 2014 in decentralization, File Sharing, Intellectual Property, Internet

After a police raid in Stockholm, the worlds leading file sharing site The Pirate Bay is still offline. It might be back at any moment. Or it might be gone for ever.

The real tragedy is that a gigant cluster of information might be gone with it. Even tough TPB was a haven for illegal file sharing, it was also an open and popular platform for legal file sharing.

Personally, I used TPB to distribute a book of mine under a Creative Commons license. In the same way TPB has been used by thousands and thousands of artists–knowing that obscurity is a worse problem than pirate copying.

TPB was (or is) an open, easy to use channel for distribution of information. No need for registration, no credit card needed and no questions asked. As it should be.

TPB also had (has) critical mass. Being the world leading site for file sharing–almost everything you want or can imagine was (is) available. No one really can compete with that.

A world without TPB would be a poorer, duller and worse off place.

Regardless if TPB will be back or not–there should be a TPB II. A truly open and decentralised system for trouble free file sharing. A system without a singe point of failure.

/ HAX

TorrentFreak: The Pirate Bay HAS NOT Been Resurrected – YET »
Forbes: Can Pirate Bay Weather The Storm? »

5

Pirate Bay taken down by Swedish police

By on December 9, 2014 in File Sharing, Intellectual Property, Internet

This morning there was a copyright related police raid against an unnamed Swedish server park. At the same time the worlds leading file sharing site The Pirate Bay went offline.

Intriguing, as TPB was supposed to be raid-proof nowadays.

TorrentFreak: Swedish Police Raid The Pirate Bay, Site Offline »

Update: Now, it’s official – TPB was the target of todays police raid »

Update 2: The Pirate Bay HAS NOT Been Resurrected – YET »

0