Six Strikes Data Requested for Lawsuits
Porn Copyright Troll Sees Collected Data as Tasty Target
by Karl Bode 09:42AM Wednesday Apr 03 2013 Tipped by MxxCon
In order to get everyone on board the entertainment industry's recently-launched "six strikes" anti-piracy initiative
, the entertainment industry-run group behind the program (the Center for Copyright Information) repeatedly stated that data collection from the program wouldn't be used for lawsuits. While the MPAA and RIAA so far haven't requested that data, that hasn't stopped copyright trolls from doing so.
Adult film shop Malibu media has subpoenaed Verizon
in an effort to collect six strikes data on one porn-sharing BitTorrent user. Verizon, as they've done with other copyright trolls like recently disgraced Prenda
, is fighting the company and claiming it "harasses" its subscribers. It is not, however, clear if Verizon will win their battle, and if they lose it could open the door to a flood of requests for six strikes data:
The case appears to have gone smoothly, up to a point. The court granted a subpoena for the information and the John Doe defendant agreed to release it. However, Verizon has refused to hand over the details. Among other things, the provider claims that "the subpoena is intended to harass Verizon," particularly in the light of a motion Verizon filed against Malibu Media earlier this year. Verizon further points out that it wants to protect its customers from "shakedown tactics against Doe defendants."
To compel Verizon to comply with the subpoena, Malibu filed a "motion to enforce" at a Texas District Court yesterday in which the studio explains that the requested information is crucial for the upcoming trial.
Through the Center for Copyright Information, the RIAA and MPAA very much want to show they've moved beyond their previous tactics of suing everyone from children to senior citizens (even if said enlightenment is an act and six strikes gets more Draconian moving forward). As such, this latest development may cause some PR ripples, and will certainly boost business at the numerous BitTorrent proxy services seeing a windfall as users try to hide from the prying eyes of their ISPs.
Re: Really ?
said by georgeglass5:I call BS on 1998???? Frist off almost everyone had 33.6 or at most 56K lines back then and streaming anything was fairly rare. Of course you may work for the government and those guys get the most out of their bandwidth LOL.
People need to own pron ? or download it ? With so much variety out there being streamed. Haven't had to "own" any of it since 98. But to each his or her own.
98 I seriously doubt it.
| |said by Mr Matt:thats called a default judgement, which you can usually get thrown out if you can prove that they are in the wrong jurisdiction, or simply say that you were not informed of the lawsuit(as is the case many a time), and you get a new hearing. Most of the time, the second hearing has the judge pissed because the first one wasted his time, and the originator of the lawsuit is not looked upon with happy eyes. Also, as long as you don't admit to it, they have no proof other than IP logs, and IP logs have been shown to be terribly inaccurate as they are already, its usually a quick case, and if you win, the accuser pays your lawyers fees. There is a high likelyhood that if you get the default judgement tossed, the accuser will not refile, and then you can go after then for harassment too.
There needs to be some balance to protect the innocent victims from these fishing schemes. There was a report of an outrageous award to a Copyright Troll against Gerald Glover described in Techdirt for failing to respond to a lawsuit here:
This ruling gives trolls an incentive to simply file a lawsuit and if the defendant is innocent and cannot afford to pay for a lawyer to defend them they are automatically judged guilty and the troll is awarded an outrageous judgement. The judge is simply aiding and abetting extortion.
Promises mean absolutely nothing Promises of how any data collected will or will not be used mean absolutely nothing, no matter who makes them or how sincere they are. Once the data is collected, someone will want it for reasons not originally intended, and they'll start working on a way to get at it.
What we really need in this country in terms of data protection are two things: first, a law that states that any time someone collects data, there must be a written policy in place describing how it can be used, that policy cannot be changed retroactively, and no one (and I mean no one, including the government) who is not a party to that agreement/policy may have access to that data under any circumstances. Second, and more importantly, we need a constitutional amendment that prohibits Congress from changing how collected data can be used after the fact. For instance, if, say, Congress mandates that the government collects a certain amount of data for a particular reason, Congress can't go back later and change the law so that already-collected data can be used for a different reason. Naturally, they can change how data from that point forward is used, but anything that's already collected must be used as originally specified.
Re: Promises mean absolutely nothing Maybe that's the case, but the Constitution is far from perfect as it is currently written. For instance, it says that Congress may grant copyrights for a limited period of time, but it doesn't specify what that means, so Congress can lengthen copyright terms as much as they want, which completely guts that section's intent.
Second, it states that two-thirds of state legislatures must approve an amendment for it to be ratified, but there is no time limit for approval, and there is no language on whether a state can grant approval and later reverse that decision before two-thirds of states have voted. This creates the possibility for some unintended outcomes, since Congress could pass an amendment, and it could sit out there for an indefinite period of time, just waiting to collect enough state legislatures to approve it. In the meantime, attitudes about the amendment could change, and states that previously approved it could no longer support it, yet it could still be ratified if there is enough support to push it through enough legislatures at one time or another.