"The Pirate Bay has made an important change to its infrastructure. The world’s most famous BitTorrent site has switched its entire operation to the cloud. From now on The Pirate Bay will serve its users from several cloud hosting providers scattered around the world. The move will cut costs, ensure better uptime, and make the site virtually invulnerable to police raids — all while keeping user data secure."
Yes. I hope that answers the question, but here’s an excerpt anyway:
Joel Tenenbaum is out of options. A Massachusetts District Court judge ruled the $675,000 fine levied against him is indeed appropriate and refused calls for a new jury trial, meaning the former Boston University graduate student will pay a staggering $21,774 for every song he shared over P2P networks.
The case has made its way through the courts over the past five years, with a jury initially finding Tenenbaum guilty of copyright infringement and levying the fine. His lawyers argued the fines were excessive, and the Judge presiding over the case at the time agreed. She lowered the fines to $67,500, or $2,177 per song, which record industry lawyers balked at and appealed to higher courts.
Through these appeals, and a refusal by the Supreme Court to hear the case, the original $675,000 fine was reinstated. Tenenbaum’s final appeal was to request a new jury trial, which was denied by a new judge presiding over the case at the District Court level, effectively ending the case.
A leaked presentation from the RIAA shows that online file-sharing isn’t the biggest source of illegal music acquisition in the U.S. The confidential data reveals that 65% of all music files are “unpaid” but the vast majority of these are obtained through offline swapping. The report further shows that cyberlockers such as Megaupload are only a marginal source of pirated music.
The Supreme Court this morning declined to hear the appeal of admitted file-swapper Joel Tenenbaum, who recently asked the court to consider the proper process for slashing his $675,000 damage award.
The trial judge in Tenenbaum’s case initially ruled that the jury verdict was unconstitutionally punitive, but the appellate court overturned this ruling and said that the judge first had to use the common-law process of “remittitur” to cut down the verdict before reaching the broader constitutional question. (Judges must typically try to address cases by dealing with lower-order issues, only reaching high-level claims about things like constitutionality when unavoidable.)
Tenenbaum’s lawyer, Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, told the Supreme Court that the labels want to maintain their high damage award “for the ulterior purpose of creating an urban legend so frightening to children using the Internet, and so frightening for parents and teachers of students using the Internet, that they will somehow reverse the tide of the digital future.” The judges didn’t buy it.
Soon the file-sharing habits of millions of BitTorrent users in the United States will be monitored as part of an agreement between the MPAA, RIAA, and all the major ISPs. Those caught sharing copyright works will receive several warning messages and will be punished if they continue to infringe. However, it now appears that the much-discussed July start date will have to wait until later in the year as the parties involved may fail to meet the provisional deadline.
During the last year Netflix managed to outgrow BitTorrent in terms of the amount of US Internet traffic it generates. A promising finding for Hollywood as it shows that there’s an overwhelming interest for the legal movie streaming service. At TorrentFreak we wondered what might happen if all US BitTorrent users made the switch to Netflix, and the results of this exploration are quite intriguing.
"The U.S. Copyright Group has sued more than 100,000 alleged BitTorrent users since last year. But, a recent filing in a U.S. class action lawsuit filed against the group shows that these cases may be built on shoddy evidence. It cites a German court ruling where the company responsible for providing the evidence could not prove that defendants actually shared any files. In addition there was evidence of a pirate honeypot."
A very interesting read over here about a case that could have huge repercussions on the recording industry lawsuits.
Now the RIAA is appealing the case in the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis, saying that the court’s failure to classify Thomas-Rasset’s actions as a “distribution” under 106(3) of the Copyright Act wouldn’t deter her (and others, presumably) from repeating her actions and violating the Copyright Act again. The RIAA is hoping to vacate the jury’s verdict based on the interpretation of “distribution,” which would result in a third trial.
"The results were clear: Piracy was rampant. The book was everywhere online. But weirdly, my readers were also proved right. Sales of the printed edition did not suffer; in fact, they rose slightly year over year."
— NYT tech columnist and computer celebrity David Pogue describes an experiment in which he released one of his popular computer books as a DRM-free PDF as well as in traditional formats and nothing bad happened. (via arlpolicynotes)
"Obviously, there is piracy that is quite destructive but again I think the data shows that in some cases file sharing might be okay. What we need to do is understand when is it good, when it is not good…Suing fans doesn’t feel like a winning strategy,” he concluded."
"Child pornography is great,” the man said enthusiastically. “Politicians do not understand file sharing, but they understand child pornography, and they want to filter that to score points with the public. Once we get them to filter child pornography, we can get them to extend the block to file sharing."
Johan Schlüter, the head of the Danish version of the RIAA
In case no one told you, the recording industries don’t give a crap about you.