NEW YORK—An Occupy Wall Street protester plans to plead guilty in a disorderly conduct case that turned into a clash … Read More
Yet Another Contested 3 Strikes File-Sharing Case Dropped By Music Biz
In 2011 New Zealand introduced the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act with the aim of reducing illicit file-sharing by sending out warnings and ultimately punishing copyright infringers.
In the first six months of the scheme RIANZ, the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand, sent out 2,766 notices. To date a total of 18 Internet account holders have been referred to the Copyright Tribunal to face fines after receiving their third strike for sharing music. But for RIANZ things haven’t been going well.
In an early test of the system, the first individual who said they would contest their case in person had their case dropped by the labels.
There were several problems. To begin, the first “strike” notice never arrived and the third was sent to the wrong person. Furthermore, the second and third notices both lacked required information, with the latter being wrongfully sent during the “cool-down” period after the second, effectively nullifying the notice.
And now it’s been revealed that the second case to be contested at the Copyright Tribunal has also been withdrawn by RIANZ at the eleventh hour, again after a failure in the warning system.
The case appeared to be fairly straightforward. A female account holder of the ISP Slingshot had used BitTorrent to share a total of 11 songs, of which two (including one by Rihanna) were detailed in the case.
She had been tracked by MarkMonitor, the same company that will spy on alleged copyright infringers in the United States when that scheme finally gets off the ground next year. The company said that the woman had been using the Vuze/Azureus BitTorrent client and had been monitored making the works available between 17 December 2011 and 28 July 2012.
However, since MarkMonitor can only prove that any infringer has uploaded content to them, RIANZ used some educated guesswork for their damages calculations. Relying on similar reasoning to that employed during the first contested case, the music group argued that since the woman had made the music available for such a long period, the tracks must have been downloaded a number of times.
They came to the conclusion that, based on an Envisional study, that the two tracks in question would have been downloaded around 90 times each for every single instance of infringement logged by MarkMonitor. The first track was logged once, the second a total of three times, coming to a grand total of 360 downloads.
After arriving at a figure of $1175 for the hypothetical downloads plus sundries, added to another $3,500 by way of don’t-do-it-again punishment, RIANZ concluded their September 17 claim with a demand $4675.
But despite all the effort and number crunching, the alleged infringer won’t have to pay a penny due to a failure in the system.
The problem appears to be down to the woman’s ISP. Service providers are supposed to make sure that infringers receive their strike notices so they can be “educated”. However, the woman’s ISP, Slingshot, simply sent them to an email account associated with her account. Trouble is, she’d never used the email account, so had therefore received no notices.
Faced with this disaster RIANZ rightly withdrew their claim, but for the second time in two months contesting cases put before the Copyright Tribunal has been shown to be an effective strategy. It’s clearly worth checking to see if something hasn’t been done by the book.
Over in the United States the labels of the RIAA will be watching and learning from these failed RIANZ cases and will be mindful that even when they do their bit, ISPs can still get things wrong. As we know, the “six strikes” scheme has just been delayed yet again – this time until 2013 – time enough, the labels hope, it get this done right straight off the bat.
Source: Yet Another Contested 3 Strikes File-Sharing Case Dropped By Music Biz
Convicted File-Sharer Gets Record 40-Month Prison Term
A member of the in-theater camcording gang known as IMAGiNE Group was handed Thursday a 40-month prison term in what is the nation’s longest sentence in a file-sharing case. A Virginia federal judge handed the confinement to Gregory A. Cherwonik, 53, of New York, a year after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement … Read More
Bank reimburses hacking victim $300K
In a case that may set a precedent for liability in hacking fraud incidents, a bank in Maine has agreed to reimburse a construction company $345,000 that was lost to hackers. A court ruled that the bank’s security practices were “commercially unreasonable,” reported Wired Friday.In 2009, hackers installed malware on construction firm Patco’s computers and stole its banking credentials to steal around $300,000. People’s United Bank has agreed to pay Patco Construction Company all the money it lost plus interest. Although a U.S. District Court ruled that People’s United wasn’t responsible for the lost money as Patco claimed, the First Circuit Court of Appeals found the bank was responsible for an increased fraud risk and advised on the settlement.”The case raised important questions about how much security banks and other financial institutions should be reasonably required to provide commercial customers,” noted Wired. Jeremy Kirk at ComputerWorld.com wrote that the case is “a sign that small businesses are having greater success at shifting liability toward banks in online security meltdowns, including out-of-court settlements.”Continue Reading… … Read More
#Anonymous hacks India IT minister’s webpage in wake of Facebook arrests
#Anonymous hacks India IT minister’s webpage in wake of Facebook arrestsGet short URLLink copied to clipboardemail story to a friendprint versionPublished: 30 November, 2012, 21:08
TAGS:Protest,
Human rights,
Law,
Internet,
India,
Court
Activists supporting the group Anonymous wear masks as they protest against the Indian Government’s increasingly restrictive regulation of the internet in New Delhi on June 9, 2012. (AFP Photo/Raveendran)Hacktivists defaced the website of India’s telecoms minister after nationwide anger at authorities crackdown on online comments. The Supreme Court has ordered several provinces to explain recent arrests over “offensive” Facebook entries.Dhada deleted her comment, but soon a violent mob gathered at her uncle’s medical clinic. When the police arrived, they chose to detain the young woman. Dhada was taken to a police station and made to apologize in a written statement. A friend of hers, Renu Srinivasan, who “liked” the post, was detained with her.The two were later released on bail and case the against them was dropped on Thursday. But on Friday their case, together with a bunch of similar ones, made the core of a petition challenging Section 66A in the Supreme Court. Critics see the 2008 amendment as a draconian limit on free speech.”The Maharashtra government is directed to explain the circumstances under which the two girls were arrested for posting comments made by them on Facebook,” concluded the judges as the Press Trust of India quotes them.The court gave the state four weeks to respond. The same requests were sent to the government
1000
in West Bengal state and the southern city of Pondicherry, where several more arrests were made under the same Section 66A. On Thursday, India’s telecoms ministry issued new guidelines which are set to make it harder for the police to arrest people for online comments. Now, a senior officer must sign-off before a complaint can be registered under the controversial amendment.But Friday bought the news of an attack on the telecoms minister’s website. Kapil Sibal’s personal webpage was taken offline for hours as hackers associated with Anonymous India (AnonOpsIndia or #OpIndia) group defaced the site.” + “ipt>Hackers posted comments and edited photos, while the “About” section came to describe Sibal as “Born with a below-60 IQ he thought he could mess with the Internet and let the elite of his party suppress freedom of speech,” as quoted by the India’s Computer World magazine.The saga has already led to the suspension of two senior police officers and the transfer of a judge. But with mounting public pressure authorities may be forced to go a step further and scrap the controversial Section 66A law.”);
$(“.tail_text”).show(500);
return false;
}
The particular cause of the ongoing public uproar in India is a 2008 amendment to the Information Technology Act, which makes it a crime to digitally send “any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character.” The law was set up with the aim of clamping down on hate speech.The penalty under the controversial Section 66A can put a person in jail for three years for an email or any online entry. The vague wording of the amendment gives room for interpretation, which has resulted in a string of arrests viewed by many as excessive. In recent developments, two women were seized a week ago in Mumbai, Maharashtra state, over the comments they made about the funeral of the hard-line politician, Bal Thackeray. As Mumbai was shut down as part of the commemorations, Shaheen Dhada, 21, wrote on her Facebook: “Every day thousands of people die, but still the world moves on. Today, Mumbai shuts down out of fear, not out of respect.”Almost instantly, she got a call from a stranger who, the girl later told the press, asked: “Do you really think whatever you posted is right?”screenshot of Shaheen Dhada support group Facebook pageDhada deleted her comment, but soon a violent mob gathered at her uncle’s medical clinic. When the police arrived, they chose to detain the young woman. Dhada was taken to a police station and made to apologize in a written statement. A friend of hers, Renu Srinivasan, who “liked” the post, was detained with her.The two were later released on bail and case the against them was dropped on Thursday. But on Friday their case, together with a bunch of similar ones, made the core of a petition challenging Section 66A in the Supreme Court. Critics see the 2008 amendment as a draconian limit on free speech.”The Maharashtra government is directed to explain t
816
he circumstances under which the two girls were arrested for posting comments made by them on Facebook,” concluded the judges as the Press Trust of India quotes them.The court gave the state four weeks to respond. The same requests were sent to the government in West Bengal state and the southern city of Pondicherry, where several more arrests were made under the same Section 66A. On Thursday, India’s telecoms ministry issued new guidelines which are set to make it harder for the police to arrest people for online comments. Now, a senior officer must sign-off before a complaint can be registered under the controversial amendment.But Friday bought the news of an attack on the telecoms minister’s website. Kapil Sibal’s personal webpage was taken offline for hours as hackers associated with Anonymous India (AnonOpsIndia or #OpIndia) group defaced the site.Hackers posted comments and edited photos, while the “About” section came to describe Sibal as “Born with a below-60 IQ he thought he could mess with the Internet and let the elite of his party suppress freedom of speech,” as quoted by the India’s Computer World magazine.The saga has already led to the suspension of two senior police officers and the transfer of a judge. But with mounting public pressure authorities may be forced to go a step further and scrap the controversial Section 66A law. … Read More
Strauss-Kahn settles out of court with maid in sexual assault case
Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the disgraced former head of the International Monetary Fund and French politician, has reached a preliminary settlement with the Manhattan maid who accused him of sexual assault, The New York Times reported Thursday. According to the Times, quoting unidentified sources…
Bank Agrees to Reimburse Hacking Victim $300K in Precedent-Setting Case
In a case watched closely by banks and their commercial customers, a financial institution in Maine has agreed to reimburse a construction company $345,000 that was lost to hackers after a court ruled that the bank’s security practices were “commercially unreasonable.” … Read More
