PRS led investigation results in prison term for chart pirate

A Liverpool man has been sentenced to a 12 month prison sentence after pleading guilty to illegally distributing UK chart hits online, which PRS for Music says potentially cost the music industry "millions of pounds and depriving the creators of the content fair remuneration for their work". The sentence was the result of a joint investigation between PRS for Music and the City of London’s Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) and is the first custodial sentence to arise from the two organisations working together.

In October Wayne Evans pleaded guilty to two counts of distributing an article infringing copyright and one of possessing or controlling an article for use in fraud - Evans had been illegally uploading the UK’s Top 40 singles to various torrent sites as they were announced each week by the Official Charts Company. The 39-year-old was also distributing tracks through his own website, including ‘acappella’ music to be used for DJ-ing and remixing. He admitted using his computers and the website deejayportal.com for use in or in connection with fraud. Before sentencing Judge Alan Conrad, QC, agreed that a pre-sentence report was a necessity,  and said the sentencing judge would require assistance, because it was “a very unusual case”.

Detective Constable Steven Kettle, who was in charge of the case, said: “Today’s sentencing will suggest to others that illegally distributing music is not without its consequences. Evans caused significant loss to the music industry and his actions will have effected jobs across the music industry. By working with partners such as PRS for Music we are better able to work collaboratively to ensure the best investigation of people like Evans and ensure that they are brought to justice.”

PRS for Music Head of Litigation, Enforcement and Anti-Piracy, Simon Bourn commented: “Music piracy on a commercial scale is a serious criminal offence and this sentencing by the Crown Court acknowledges that. Copyright infringement has a severe impact on the livelihoods of creators and so it is important that PRS for Music, alongside PIPCU, continues to champion and protect our members’ rights. We hope that today’s sentencing sends a message to all those involved in this type of criminal activity, that consequences will follow.”

http://www.barrheadnews.com/news/14971762.Pirate_DJ_jailed_for_sharing___1m_worth_of_tracks_online/

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/everton-man-admits-illegally-sharing-11993959

https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/advice-and-support/fraud-and-economic-crime/pipcu/pipcu-news/Pages/Man-pleads-guilty-to-illegally-distributing-thousands-of-UK-Top-40-hits.aspx

THE COPYKAT

A Liverpool man has pleaded guilty to illegally distributing chart hits online, potentially costing the music industry millions of pounds and depriving the creators of the content fair remuneration for use of their work. Wayne Evans was arrested at his home in Everton last year following a joint investigation between PRS for Music and the City of London’s Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU). Evans pleaded guilty on Friday, 7th October at Liverpool Crown Court to illegally uploading the UK’s Top 40 singles to various torrent sites as they were announced each week by the Official Charts Company. The 39-year-old, known online as OldSkoolScouse, was also distributing tracks through his own website, including ‘acappella’ music to be used for DJ-ing and remixing. The conviction results from a case that began with a joint investigation between UK performance right collection society PRS for Music and PIPCU. Sentencing will take place next month (on November 11th).

And more music! The Music Managers Forum has published 'Dissecting the Digital Dollar Part 2' saying "While recognising that record companies continue to make significant investments in new music, many in the music community believe that there needs to be a frank conversation about how streaming income is shared" and "Many people felt that the share received by heritage artists, session musicians and songwriters needs particular consideration, and that a ‘performer equitable remuneration’ system like that that operates in the radio sector and the ‘contract adjustment mechanism’ proposed in the draft European copyright directive might be ways to address some of these concerns" and "Artists and songwriters would generally prefer more digital services to be licensed through the collective licensing system, though managers recognise that there can be issues with that approach. CMOs should seek to address those issues" amongst many other interesting things! You can download a copy of the report yourself here. 

The US Copyright Office is asking for comment on that thorny issue of copyright and 'fixing things'. Back in 2015 The US Register of Copyrights Maria A Ms. Pallante noted that the anticircumvention provisions of Section 1201 of the DMCA prevent consumers from “engaging in activities, such as the repair of their automobiles and farm equipment, which previously had no implications under copyright law”. That issue had been in the news, not least as at the end of 2015 Senators Grassley and Leahy, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary, published a letter to the Copyright Office asking it to analyse the impact of copyright law on “software-enabled devices” (such as cars, phones, drones, appliances, and many more products with embedded computer systems). This issue they said was "crucial because technology and the law have evolved in a way that no one could have intended when Congress wrote the present copyright laws, and that evolution has restricted customers’ freedoms to repair, understand, and improve on the devices they buy". Car makers including General Motors and other vehicle manufacturers such as tractor maker Deere & Co had opposed a ruling from the Copyrght Office agreeing with this, saying vehicle owners could visit authorised repair shops for changes they may need to undertake - much to the annoyance of drivers and farmers! Now you can have your say! The EFF have already taken a lead saying "Let’s send a strong message to the U.S. Copyright Office and lawmakers: copyright law should not criminalize research and repair". More here and here. Request for Additional Comments here. 

And finally, Kanye West, Jay Z and Frank Ocean have prevailed in a $3 million copyright-infringement lawsuit filed against them in 2014 by singer songwriter Joel McDonald. A federal appeals court has now that the trio’s 2011 hit “Made in America,” from Kanye and Jay Z’s “Watch the Throne” album, did not copy a 2009 track by McDonald: McDonald claimed that the artists plagiarised his song after their “Watch the Throne” producer, Mike Dean, bought one of McDonald’s CDs. The appeals court upheld a September 2015 dismissal of the suit saying "“We have considered all of McDonald’s arguments and find them to be without merit.” 

Our two new intern bloggers, David Liao and Tibbie McIntyre, will be taking over the COPYKAT from next week  - we wish them well. We are sure they will be finding marvellous titbits and morsels of copyright news to keep everyone well fed with up to date copyright news.  

The CopyKat

A US charity called the Association for Childhood Education International has filed a motion to intervene in the 'Happy Birthday' case as music publisher Warner/Chappell ponder their next move(s) after federal judge George H King ruled that Warner/Chappell’s copyright claim was invalid as they seemingly did not control the rights to the lyrics to the song. ACEI’s lawyers claim that the organisation had been receiving one-third of all revenues generated from Happy Birthday for over 20 years – and is largely reliant on this money to continue operating. ACEI argue that the song’s original author, Patty Hill, and her sister, Jessica Hill, had directly assigned rights to Summy Co – which would make Warner/Chappell the song’s rightful controller. Patty Hill, says the motion, was both a founding member and ‘active participant’ in ACEI “As the beneficiaries of Jessica Hill’s estate [which benefited from Patti's estate] both ACEI and the Hill Foundation have a very real and present interest in this litigation" - because if Warner/Chappell don't hold the rights to the lyrics - they do as heirs! More on MBW here and on TechDirt here.

That leaked document that revealed the EU Commission's plans for copyright in 2016 has sparked a lot of comment in cyber space - most name checking the IPKat!  In addition to tackling the issue of content portability in the spring, the draft suggests the Commission will explore a "follow-the-money" approach to enforcement, clarify rules for identifying infringers, and examine the crosss-border application of injunctions. The EU Commission is currently working on proposals for the modernization of copyright with the aim of providing a framework more suited to the digital age. The EU’s plan was set to go public exactly a month from today but last week the purrrrrfectly wonderful  IPKat said it had obtained a leaked copy of the draft communication from a ‘Brussels insider’. The main worry seems to be about linking - and the SEM Post opines that the plan "shows a very scary route the EU wants to take with links on the web, one that would hold a site owner liable if they link to any content that infringes on someone’s copyright.  Yes, a site owner could be liable if someone else they happen to link to has stolen content on that page, even if they had no idea if was stolen.This means that publishers – or anyone who publishes anything online, whether it be for business or a personal blog – could also need to consult a lawyer for every link they make, to know it is “safe” to link to". Julia Reda, the Pirate Party member of the European Parliament representing Germany, wrote on her site about the leaked draft on copyright reform and it could have a profound affect on the entire internet.

U.S. House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) is right in the middle “listening tour” as part of an ongoing review of U.S. copyright law, and now he’s holding a hearing at UCLA that is aimed in part at Hollywood. Goodlatte has held 20 hearings on copyright law since announcing his review in 2013, with the focus on “determining whether our copyright laws are still working in the digital age.” More recently, he’s been travelling on a “listening tour” that takes him closer to key industries. Having started in Nashville,  Variety says he was recently at Santa Clara University in Northern California  to get a Silicon Valley perspective. The EFF says the main points raised by the technology companies were: (1) Statutory damages are far too high, and bringing them into rational territory could help solve other problems. (2)The Digital Millennium Copyright Act's DRM provisions urgently need reform. (3) Fair use has to do a lot of work, so it's a good thing judges have enabled it to do so and (4)  It's not just copyright—End User License Agreements have diminished our ownership rights. The line-up of experts and panellists in Santa Clara was diverse and impressive, and included people like Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle, Ted Ullyot, who works for the technology investment firm of Andreessen Horowitz, musician Zoe Keating, iFixit CEO and DMCA activist Kyle Wiens, and of course EFF's own staff attorney Kit Walsh.

U.S. District Court Judge Gail Standish has dismissed a copyright lawsuit against Taylor Swift by using some lyrical terminology. Musician and songwriter Jessie Braham has accused Swift of stealing “Shake It Off” lyrics from his song “Haters Gonna Hate,” and attested that he had the song copyrighted back in February. Braham was suing Swift for $42 million in damages and a writing credit on her hit song. Standish wrote, “At present, the Court is not saying that Braham can never, ever, ever get his case back in court. But, for now, we have got problems, and the Court is not sure Braham can solve them.”

City Of London Police's IP Crime Unit (PIPCU) has arrested two people in Manchester on suspicion of being involved in the unlicensed distribution of music software online. PIPCU began investigating the arrested couple after being made aware of their online operation by record industry trade group the British Phonographic Industry (BPI). The accused allegedly ran a piracy operation that sold musical software - including digital products like backing tracks and pre-recorded instrumentals - at substantially reduced prices, without the permission of the owners of the works they are distributing.

And finally: readers are no doubt aware that on January 1st 2016, Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, will enter the public domain in Europe, where the term of protection ends 70 years after the death of a work’s author, despite concerns.  Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels' diaries will similarly enter the public domain. But what about the writings of one of the Nazis’ most famous victims, Anne Frank, who died the same year as Hitler – 1945? It may surprise readers that the Swiss-based foundation that is the heir to the Frank family says the copyrights for the various versions of her work won’t expire for decades. The Anne Frank Fonds, a non-profit organization located in the Swiss city of Basel, was set up in 1963 by Anne’s father, Otto. The Fonds administers the rights to all writings by Anne Frank and says that copyright is crucial to protect her work from unchecked commercial exploitation. It seems that the 'Diary' we all know  (see illustration) was an edited compilation of two earlier works by Anne Frank, and that edited version was put together by her father, Otto, and first published in 1947. And the Foundation say Otto is a 'co-author' because of his role of editing, merging and trimming entries from her diary and notebooks and reshaping them into “kind of a collage” meriting its own copyright. As Otto didn't die until 1980, the Foundation say this work is still protected by copyright and will be until 2050. The two original versions by Frank, and various later translations,  were not published until 1986, so again the Trust says these remain in copyright, as do the versions edited by the German writer Mirjam Pressler, who is still alive (and is credited as a co-author with Otto of the 'definitive edition'). The diary was first translated in English in 1952 by Barbara Mooyaart, who is now 96. In the United States, the diary’s copyright will still end in 2047, 95 years after the first publication of the book in 1952. More here and here.

The CopyKat - Friday's feline feast

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) have both sent letters to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) urging the organization to take strong action against the use of domain names for illegal and abusive activities including those related to copyright infringement. The RIAA had said it was disappointed with ICANN’s treatment of copyright abuse complaints and urged ICANN to make domain name registries and registrars investigate copyright abuse complaints and take swift action, not least because when ICANN recently opened up top-level domains, it included a provision in its contract with the registries of the new top-level domains which was called the Public Interest Commitment - agreeing that they would only do business with domain name registrars that prohibited its customers from distributing piracy, trademark and copyright infringement (amongst other things). More on Techspot here.

Here's an interesting take on copyright reform in the EU: "The reform of copyright also concerns linguistic precision - a distinction should be made between Anglo-American copyright and continental European authors' rights. With copyright exploitation rights are not necessary reserved for the creator." Its from Dietmar Köster, the European Parliament's EPP group shadow rapporteur looking towards a renewed consensus on the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the EU: That debate is being led by the rapporteur for parliament's legal affairs committee, Julia Reda, of the Greens/EFA group.

City University are organising a copyright-related seminar to be held at City Law School on Wednesday 1st April 2015, College Building, Room AG 02. The speaker is Professor Stavroula Karapapa (University of Reading), who will talk about "The Concept of 'Public' in Copyright Law" and will look at "what amounts to an actionable communication of copyright works to the public. Recent rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union uphold that infringement takes place not only where an unauthorised communication reaches the public but also where a communication is addressed to a «new public», i.e. a public that copyright holders had not taken into account when authorising the initial communication of the work. This newly developed doctrine does not refer to a public or a private circle in a copyright sense, but develops a sui generis legal fiction that fundamentally changes the communication right; it both restricts and expands its scope in ways that were not foreseen when the right was first introduced in international law, European copyright and the national laws of Member States. In its unnecessary complexity and complicated logic that challenges the credibility of copyright, the concept of the “new public” indicates that the extremely broad scope of the communication right is unworkable and counter productive, and invites a principle-based approach in examinations of infringement." More here.

CMU Daily reports that the City Of London Police's IP Crime Unit (PIPCU) has shut down a copyright infringing karaoke website following a complaint by PRS For Music. CMU tells us that KaraokeWorld was a BitTorrent site with a specific focus on accessing unlicensed karaoke tune. The service had a commercial element, with VIP memberships on offer from £5 to £90, which will have heightened the case for taking criminal rather than civil action against the operation. A 46 year old man believed to be the operator of the website was arrested as part of the shutdown. PIPCU Detective Chief Inspector Danny Medlycott told reporters: "The public needs to be aware that by accessing sites like this, they are putting money directly in the hands of criminals, which often then funds other serious organised crime, as well as putting their own financial and personal details at risk of being compromised and used for other fraudulent scams. These websites are stealing from the creative industries that employ thousands of people and PIPCU will continue to work closely with our partners to tackle the criminals behind these sites and bring them to justice".

AND FINALLY - AND coincidently set against the backdrop of the news that Sarah Brightman is working with Andrew Lloyd Webber on new material to perform in space -  this from a anonymous contributor who The CopyKat shall name only as 'Major Tom'.....

'Stimulated by Sarah Brightman's intention to be propelled into space in September, the EU has launched a Public Consultation into the collective administration of rights in extraterrestrial broadcasting. "We have asked her to delay her flight for an indefinite period - possibly several aeons - while we consult and decide on the cross-planet implications of the licensing of her performance', said an EU spokesperson. Elsewhere (George) Lucas Grange, supremo of Universal Music, said 'We are called Universal for a good reason. We have an exclusive arrangement with Ms Brightman and her ex-husband, with his Soyuzful Music Corporation, to handle all the publishing and artistic rights. People laughed at us when we signed everything for the Universe, but they are now laughing on the other side of their galaxies.' This claim was dismissed by Sergey Brin. 'Ms Brinman's voyage will take place in Google Rocket, propelled by Google Zoom. Her Google Watch will stream her singing via Google Play and Universal can go and sing for their royalties. Her destination was Google Moon, but if she fails in her mission then she and the royalties will fall into a Google Black Hole.' Speaking from a black hole in Brussels, an EU spokesperson stated that all modalities would be taken into consideration. The CEO of a central European collecting society, who wished to remain anonyme, said 'all public performance royalties from Ms Brightman's performances that cannot be distributed (and that means all of them) will be sucked into our black box, as is customary'.

To infinity ...... and beyond!

Who framed the CopyKat?

The UK government has confirmed another two years of funding for the City Of London Police's Intellectual Property Crime Unit, or PIPCU, which has been spearheading a number of anti-piracy initiatives since its launch last year.

Finnish Parliamentarians have voted to reject a proposal to reform copyright laws by reducing infringements by private individuals to a misdemeanour. The bill reached the attention of lawmakers by way of a citizen’s initiative following a highly-publicised case in which anti-piracy authorities fined a 10-year old girl for illegally downloading pop music on to her home computer. The Finnish Parliament's Education and Culture Committee had already proposed rejecting the Bill.

Napoleon Crossing the Alps,
Jacques-Louis David (1805)

"Napoleon's conquest of Italy led to a copyright-fuelled opera boom" - well that caught my eye! And it seems a new study provides evidence of how copyright laws inspire more and higher-quality artistic works. Michela Giorcelli and Petra Moser, Stanford University economists, studied Italian opera from the late 1700s through 1900 and found that after Napoleon invaded Italy — bringing with him French copyright laws — those copyright laws were associated with both more and higher-quality operas. More here. 

Over on the IPKat, Eleonora has alerted all CopyKats to a new decision from the CJEU which follows in the wake of Svennson: in the  BestWater  case the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down a "landmark" verdict - ruling that embedding or framing copyrighted videos is not copyright infringement, even if the source video was uploaded without permission. The CJEU said (this is a translation from German and may not be wholly accurate) as long as the original video not altered or communicated to a new public.- and in this case the original video was already available on YouTube - embedding it is not seen as a new communication with the court saying "“The embedding in a website of a protected work which is publicly accessible on another website by means of a link using the framing technology … does not by itself constitute communication to the public within the meaning of [Article 3(1) of the EU Infosoc Directive] to the extent that the relevant work is neither communicated to a new public nor by using a specific technical means different from that used for the original communication”. The CopyKat thinks this is an important decision - with major ramifications for owners of audio visual content - Eleonora has already updated this breaking news with a second post over on the IPKat with some assistance from a guest contribution from Oliver Löffel who says this was the answer to the question posed by the  Bundesgerichtshof (as translated):

The embedding, within one’s own website, of another person’s work made available to the public on a third-party website, by means of a link using the framing technology, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not by itself constitute communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society [the InfoSoc Directive], insofar as the work concerned is neither directed at a new public nor communicated by using specific technical means that differ from that used for the initial communication. 

This means that embedding videos which are freely available on, for example (and is it was the case here) YouTube, does not constitute an infringement of the right of communication/making available to the public if the work concerned is neither directed at a new public nor communicated by using specific technical means different from that used for the initial communication.

Another case referencing Svennson is the recent decision by Mr Justice Arnold in 1967 Ltd & Others v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Others [2014] EWHC 3444 (Ch) (23 October 2014). Here - in another clear judgment on how website blocking injunctions should be applied for pursuant to section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (itself a result of Article 8.3 of the InfoSoc Directive which provides that  "Member States shall ensure that rightsholders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright or related right) Arnold J noted that the following four matters had to be established: (1) that the Defendants are service providers; (2) that users (i.e. consumers) and/or the operators of the target websites infringe the Claimant's copyrights; (3) that users and/or operators of the target websites use the Defendants' services (here ISPs - the big UK five of BSkyB, BT, EE, Talk Talk and Virgin) to do that; and (4) that the Defendants have actual knowledge. These four matters had been covered by the record label claimants and so Arnold J had no difficulty in finding all four matters established.  And Arnold J found that users infringe by copying and communicating the Claimant's works to the public and also found that the website operators infringe by communicating those works to the public - and here held that in the case of the 13 target websites, it is a communication to a new public, "...which is to say a public which was not considered by the rights holders concerned when they authorised the original communication or other act of dissemination of the recordings." (emphasis added).

Wednesday's CopyKat is an off-to-court Kat: how apealing

Variety reports that MGM and James Bond producers Danjaq have filed a copyright infringement suit against NBC Universal claiming that the studio’s planned “Section 6″ feature film is a rip off of the lucrative 007 franchise. The law suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, also names screenwriter Aaron Berg and says. “This lawsuit concerns a motion picture project, in active development, featuring a daring, tuxedo-clad British secret agent, employed by ‘His Majesty’s Secret Service,’ with a ‘license to kill,’ and a 00 (double-O) secret agent number on a mission to save England from the diabolical plot of a megalomanical villain”. I have to say that does sound familiar ......  mind you, it would also sound quite like the plots of the Johhny English films too. The suit goes on to say that the the project, which is planned to be directed by Joe Cornish and starring Jack O’Connell “misappropriates from the James Bond works far beyond the signature aspects of James Bond,” and that it copies “in detail nearly every aspect of the characters, plots dialogue, themes. setting, mood and other key elements of the copyrighted James Bond literary works and motion pictures.”  In 1995 a federal court in Los Angeles ruled in favour of MGM in its contention that a Honda commercial violated its copyrights with a commercial that evoked Bond, even though that name was not used. Injunctive relief is sought. 

The American Cable Association (ACA) has become the the latest trade body to come out in support of the legitimacy of the Internet TV streaming service Aereo in the upcoming appeal in the US Supreme Court. The ACA – which represents some 850 smaller and medium-sized, independent cable companies – has filed an amicus brief urging the Court to uphold the legality of Aereo’s technology as safely fitting within the tradition of maintaining the public’s ability to access freely available local broadcast TV signals, and reject the copyright claims from broadcast companies to "protect business models and erect pay walls".  That said, the US Copyright Office general counsel Jacqueline C Charlesworth, speaking at the American Bar Association’s Intellectual Property Law Conference in Washington, told delegates that the legal basis for Aereo’s antenna-based online television streaming service was“fundamentally incorrect”. According to Law360, Charlesworth said the “very important case” had implications far beyond the particular business model, that really goes to on-demand or interactive streaming services in general. “Taken to its logical extreme … it would threaten a lot of existing systems where content owners are receiving royalties”. With the apparent variety of opposing opinions already highlighted in the US judiciary, surely it is time to revisit Cablevision?  

Not a work of art ......

The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a criminal complaint alleging copyright infringement against a shop owner, Hasmukh Panchal, who dealt in duplicate parts of Hyundai cars. The Court held saying that automobile parts cannot be treated as works of art for which Copyright Act can be invoked. Whist Charges under sections 63 and 65 can be used for works including to painting, sculpture, drawing, and photographs and on works of literature, its not for car parts. 

Filmakerz.org, one of the websites that was targeted by the recent wide-ranging web block order against 45 websites linking to infringing material issued by the Public Prosecutor of Rome to ISPs - has won appeal before the Court Of Appeals in Rome. Appeal judges ordered the blockade against the video sharing site be lifted on the basis that the whole site blockade was too wide and resulted in legitimate content on the Filmakerz.org platform being blocked too. The appeals court also said that web-block injunctions should only be issued against sites which are clearly profiting from the infringement they commit or enable.

And Singapore is looking to introduce blocking orders against websites which blatantly infringe copyright in proposed changes to the Copyright Act - in a move to give rights holders more effective measures to act against sites which host pirated content. A public consultation on the proposed new laws is underway till 21 April. The Media Convergence Review Panel's 2012 recommended a multi-pronged approach to address online piracy, comprising (a) public education, (b) the promotion of legitimate digital content services, and (c) the adoption of appropriate regulatory measures. 

More from PIPCU. The City of London's  Police Intelligent Crime Property Unit, who are targeting one of the most torrented, streamed and illegally downloaded TV series of all time, Game of Thrones: just one episode in series 3  racked up 4,280,000 illegal downloads. As well as creating an "Infringing Website" list, officers are trying to replace advertising banners on illegal sites with a tailored message. Rights holders identified a total of 61 websites that provided unauthorised access to the show during its first episode of the new series. In response, PIPCU has sent deterrent notices to those domains, giving the sites the chance to remove the content. If a domain does not act in time, it seems PIPCU will contact advertisers and demand that all revenue to the infringing site be shut down.

A group of film studios including Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., Disney Enterprises Inc., Paramount Pictures Corp., Universal City Studios Productions, Columbia Pictures Industries Inc. and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc have filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Virginia against MegaUpload boss Kim Dotcom, Vester Limited, the majority shareholder of Megaupload Limited, Mathias Ortmann, the site's chief technical officer, and Bram van der Kolk, who oversaw programming. The suit alleged that the defendants encouraged and profited from copyright infringement of movies and television shows before they were indicted on federal criminal charges and Megaupload was shut down.


An interesting article in the Moscow Times from Elena Trusova (Goltsblat BLP, the Russian practice of Berwin Leighton Paisner) looking at how the new Russian "Anti-piracy law" is being used against Internet sites hosting illegal audiovisual works: there seem to have been more than a hundred applications against dozens of sites - the majority from Russian content owners rather than foreign firms, and the courts "frequently use quite a general wording to describe the measures applied to the defendant, such as: "desist from creating technical conditions allowing hosting, distribution and other use of a motion picture on a certain website". Elena explains that "This approach provides some freedom of action for both the plaintiff and Roskomnadzor, in charge of enforcing the ruling during the enforcement stage. In particular, on the basis of this wording, it is quite possible not only to block access to an individual link or separate page of web-site but also to the information source as a whole, if, for instance, all its contents are used for publishing illegal content or links thereto." You can click through to the article here . 

And finally a quick review of some interesting updates

The Prenda Law 'trolling' case: the appeal by three of the attorneys who were associated with Prenda, Steele Hansmeier PLLC and Alpha Law  goes from bad to worse as the oral hearing begins. More here .

Malibu Media: an adult film company also accused of trolling, has said that it will settle cases based on the outcome of a lie detector test. Documents filed in the Northern District of Illinois Federal Court say  "Malibu will dismiss its claims against any Defendant who agrees to and passes a polygraph administered by a licensed examiner of the Defendant's choosing". Malibu have “filed 268 cases within the Northern District of Illinois". More here. 

U.S. District Judge Henry Edward Autrey has awarded Warner Bros. $2.57 million for violations of their  copyrights in The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind and the Tom and Jerry cartoon series by a number of 'collectibles' dealers who repeatedly infringed their copyrights - and submitted financial figures to the court which the judge clearly thought were unreliable at best. Judge Autrey said "This court finds statutory damages of $10,000.00 per infringement to be reasonable, considering: the factual history of this case, including defendants' failure to provide accurate records in order for plaintiffs to determine the profits made for the infringements; defendants' undisputed continued infringement after the initiation of this suit; the need for specific deterrence of the defendants' further copyright violations; the need for general deterrence for others who may consider engaging in copyright violations; and comparative awards of statutory damages by other federal district courts confronted with similar violations".More here.  

PIPCU 'goes global' in pursuit of illegal websites

A press release from the UK’s Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) tells us that the UK's Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit "goes global in its pursuit of illegal websites" with the missive highlighting:

·         A pilot collaboration between PIPCU, the advertising sector and the creative industries 

·         40 national and international websites suspended by domain name registrars

·         Pirate sites exposing consumers to malware and fraudulent scams targeted

The Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) is based at the City of London Police and has been set up to protect UK industries that produce legitimate, high quality, physical goods and online and digital content. The operationally independent unit is initially being funded by the Intellectual Property Office, which is part of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

PIPCU have also released details of their "innovative three month pilot, in collaboration with the creative and advertising industries" designed to disrupt advertising revenues on infringing websites has seen a clear and positive trend, with a reduction in advertising from major household brands. A detailed report looking at 61 websites over the course of the pilot, evidenced as profiting from advertising and operating without licenses from content creators, revealed the following:

·         During the pilot adverts from well-known brands decreased by 12%;

·         Adverts that lead the user to sites with explicit adult content or expose them to malware increased by 39% during the pilot, indicating that site owners may struggle to maintain their revenue streams when adverts from established brands are removed;

·         Almost half (46%) of total ads served to the sites were for unknown or unidentified brands which invited users to click through, often to fraudulent scams.

Operation Creative began in the summer with a partnership between the City of London Police, the UK advertising industry (represented by the Internet Advertising Bureau UK (IAB UK), the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers (ISBA) and the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising (IPA)) and rights holders (represented by FACT (Federation Against Copyright Theft), BPI (British Recorded Music Industry), IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) and the PA (Publishers Association)). Rights holders identified the 61 websites that were providing unauthorised access to copyrighted content. Once illegal activity was confirmed by analysts from the City of London Police, a formal ‘prevention and deterrent’ process began to encourage infringing websites to engage with the Police, to correct their behaviour and to begin to operate legitimately.

Details of those failing to respond to this approach were then passed to a group of 60 brands, agencies and advertising technology businesses with a request to stop advertising on these websites.

The next phase of Operation Creative targeted the websites that persisted in offending. PIPCU sent out formal letters to domain name registrars explaining that they were hosting websites facilitating criminal copyright infringement under UK law as well as potentially breaching their terms and conditions. Registrars were then requested to suspend these websites until further notice. These sites are now under an on-going review by PIPCU officers - although its not been without some controversy with one registrar,  Mark Jeftovic, owner of EasyDNS,  pointing out in a blog that there was a "lack of any semblance of due process when it comes to domain name takedowns."

Superintendent Bob Wishart, from PIPCU, said: “Operation Creative is being run by PIPCU and the digital and advertising sectors to really get to grips with a criminal industry that is making substantial profits by providing and actively promoting access to illegally obtained and copyrighted material" adding “Together we have created a process that first and foremost encourages offenders to change their behaviour so they are operating within the law. However, if they refuse to comply we now have the means to persuade businesses to move their advertising to different platforms and, if offending continues, for registrars to suspend the websites."

Kieron Sharp, FACT Director General, said: “FACT is delighted to be working with PIPCU and partners from the advertising, music and publishing sectors to protect UK consumers from websites that promote illegal content and also provide an unsafe platform that puts themselves and their families at risk. Many of these sites have no content filters and contain material that is unsuitable for children."

More on PIPCU here http://www.the1709blog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/reading-writing-and-arrest-matic-as.html

Reading, Writing and Arrest-matic as PIPCU strikes three

This blogger received a press release today which makes fascinating reading.  It runs like this:

New Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) makes third arrest

Detectives from the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) have arrested a man at his Reading home today on suspicion of operating a website that was illegally selling music albums, singles and films. This early morning operation, which followed a referral from PRS for Music, is the third arrest made by City of London Police's Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) since its launch last month.

The 33-year-old man is believed to have been using a website to sell discs containing music and films, which he does not hold the copyright licence for, for a small fee of only a few pounds. Each disc can contain up to 40 music albums and is estimated to be worth hundreds of pounds. The man was taken to a local police station for further questioning by PIPCU officers and subsequently an agreement was reached to transfer the control of the website to City of London Police.

Detective Inspector Rob [an unfortunate choice of forename for a policeman involved in ant--theft activities?] Stirling, from PIPCU, said:

“Today’s arrest forms part of just one of the many investigations PIPCU is currently pursuing. Since the launch of PIPCU we have seen a wide range of businesses come forward with referrals for the unit and today’s operation shows how this information can swiftly be turned into live investigations and arrests. We urge any UK organisation who believes they may be victim to intellectual property crime in the UK or overseas, to get in touch and submit evidence to the unit so we can get right to work.”

A spokesperson for PRS for Music said:

“We welcome the establishment of the new Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) and will be working closely with them to ensure that member’s rights are protected. Today’s action is a positive step forward in tackling those individuals and companies who profit from the theft of their music.”

The Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) has been set up to protect UK industries that produce legitimate, high quality, physical goods and online and digital content.

The operationally independent unit is initially being funded - £2.56m over two years [£2.56m is a derisory sum for an operationally independent unit, unless it can rely on PRS for Music, FACT and other bodies to do its investigations for it] - by the Intellectual Property Office, which is part of the Department for Business Innovation Skills [not quite: it's the Department of Business, Innovation & Skills ...].

In the next two years PIPCU will be working with a wide range of national and international partners from public authorities and private industry to build a comprehensive UK policing response to the threat of online intellectual property crime.

The unit will also be focused on influencing online behaviour by site owners, service providers and consumers through education, prevention and enforcement activity, and providing offenders where appropriate with opportunities to accept restorative justice.

To find out more information on PIPCU or to make a referral just click here.

This blogger wonders what would have happened to the 33-year old man from Reading if PIPCU hadn't been invented. Would he not in any event be prosecuted?