GGF lawyer questions Pirate Bay sale

And yet another chapter in the Pirate Bay saga (see the IPKat's earlier posts here and here): AP and the German magazine Der Spiegel now report that Ricardo Dijkstra, a lawyer acting for the would-be-buyer Global Gaming Factory X (GGF), today announced in an Amsterdam court that his client would only buy the Pirate Bay site if the site could be turned it into a "legitimate business."

Our readers may recall that it had been announced at the end of June that the file-sharing site had been sold to the Swedish gaming company GGF, who had reportedly paid 60m Swedish kronor (£4.7m) for this purchase.

GGF's latest announcement was made during a hearing in a civil case, which has been brought against Pirate Bay and GGF in the Netherlands by Stichting Brein, a Dutch copyright holders association.

BPI/Virgin Media letters cause kerfuffles

Following on from the announcement that Virgin Media were to start writing letters to customers of theirs identified by the BPI for apparently allowing their internet connection to be used for infringing file-sharing purposes (noted by the IPKat here), one of these letters might be due to arrive at the door of IT blogger Bill Thompson. Bill didn't appreciate this possibility very much, and wrote as such in a recent post about the issue, saying among other things:

"I believe it's a doomed enterprise, as the growth of a fast internet coupled with the ability to make perfect copies of digital content means that all of the assumptions that underpin film studios, TV broadcasters and record companies have been stripped away, leaving them flailing around, threatening and suing the people who should be their best customers and hoping to persuade politicians to pass new laws to give them special privileges online."

He did, however, acknowledge that the situation was changing:

"As more licensed download services become available, many offering songs without usage restrictions enforced by digital rights management technologies, the wholesale copying of unlicensed copies becomes a lot less defensible."

The BPI, in the form of their chief executive Geoff Taylor has now responded to this, concluding:

"We know our campaign with Virgin Media is not, in isolation, going to solve the problem of how creators can be fairly rewarded in a digital environment.

But this is a genuine step in the right direction, and represents a turning point in the music community's bid to restore value in music to its rightful owners: the artists and music companies who invest in their creative careers."

The IPKat, who is not taking either side in this, can understand both points of view, but cannot see how downloading (or making available) other people's copyright material such as music and films without payment can be realistically defended, when the law is quite clear on the matter. People such as Bill Thompson, and millions of others, are knowingly infringing copyright, and should not therefore be surprised or outraged when they are told that they should not be doing it. The IPKat doesn't know whether this really will be a turning point or perhaps instead the start of a long and bloody legal battle. Merpel is just glad that her internet connection is not provided by Virgin.

Virgin Media gets serious

The IPKat noticed this story today on the Register about Virgin Media and the British Phonographic Institute (BPI) getting together to warn Virgin's broadband customers about their accounts being used for P2P file-sharing. Some customers will be receiving letters from the BPI and Virgin about this, providing them with a kindly-worded warning (a steel fist in a velvet glove, if you like) to the effect that, if they don't stop, their service could be cut off or they could face legal action. The letters, in template form, are available here and here.

While some might complain about this on the grounds, for example, that there are also legitimate uses of P2P file-sharing, or that this is unwarranted intrusion into an internet user's private life, the IPKat tends to agree with the BPI and Virgin on this one. P2P systems such as BitTorrent are, as far as he has been able to work out, almost entirely devoted (if not actively designed) to distributing other people's material (mostly music and video) without making any payment to the rightful copyright owners. There cannot really therefore be any realistic argument that what Virgin is doing is in any way unfair, particularly as the copyright owners have the ability (under s97A of the CDPA) to take out an injunction against ISPs for letting this kind of thing go on. The IPKat would, however, be interested to read of any contrary views.

Logistep and the Swiss dodge; Japan arrests virus writers -- for what?!

Info World has just informed the IPKat that Switzerland has warned Logistep, a company that tracks file-sharers for copyright infringements, that its tactics violate Swiss telecommunication law. Under Swiss law, the identity of a subscriber to an ISP can only be revealed for the purpose of a criminal case, not a civil one, since the IP address of a computer controlled by a subscriber is considered "personal" information. To protect its position, Logistep has asked Swiss prosecutors to open criminal cases. A civil action is then initiated against the file sharer while the criminal case is ongoing. At this point, it seems that prosecutors usually drop the criminal case and leave everything to the civil action. Logistep has until 9 February to respond to the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner.
Left: starting young - Logistep training its staff on the latest dodging techniques

The IPKat concedes that Logistep's tactics so far have been a neat way of dodging the Swiss telecoms laws. But file-sharing is a neat way of escaping the likelihood of an action for copyright infringement and that's also a sort of dodge.


Meanwhile, the IPKat's friend and fellow blogger Tomasz Rychlicki has sent him this link to an item from Sophos about the first arrest of a computer virus writer in Japan -- for copyright infringement. According to this news item:

"Police in Kyoto have arrested three men, who are said to have been involved in a plot to infect users of the P2P file-sharing network Winny with a Trojan horse that displayed images of popular anime characters while wiping music and movie files. The malware, which has been dubbed Harada in media reports, is believed to be related to the Pirlames Trojan horse which Sophos reported intercepting in Japan last year.

According to Japanese media reports, the three men have admitted their involvement in the crime. Masato Nakatsuji, a 24-year-old student, is said to have written the malware, while 39-year-old Shoji Sakai and Katsuhisha Ikema, 35, are said to have distributed the malicious code via Winny.

The Pirlames Trojan, which is believed to be related to the arrests in Japan, was distributed via Winny and displayed cartoon images.

"Normally you would expect malware writers to be arrested for breaking into computers with their code or damaging data, but in this case he is accused of breaching copyright because he used cartoon graphics without permission in his Trojan horse. Because this is the first arrest in Japan of a virus writer it's likely to generate a lot of attention and there will be many people watching to see the outcome," said Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant for Sophos. "Malware is truly a global menace, impacting on every user of the internet, and it is good to see police around the world doing their bit to tackle the problem." ..."

Noting that the effect of this virus was to erase shared files, the IPKat can't help wondering about the motivation of the virus writers. Were they just seeing what they could achieve, or did they have some inherent moral or economic ground upon which to oppose file-sharing?

Scarlet appeals against software filter order

A news item from Bloomberg, written by Stephanie Bodoni, reports that Scarlet Belgie Holding BV, one of Belgium's smallest internet service providers, is appealing against an order of the Brussels Court of First Instance on 29 June that it should block users from illegally sharing music and video files via its network. Scarlet objects that compliance with this order would force it to invade its users' privacy by searching through all their online activity. Calling referring to this ruling as "Big Brother on the Internet", Scarlet MD Gert Post adds,

"If we don't challenge it as of today, we leave the door open to permanent, and invisible and illegal, checks of personal data".

Under the June ruling Scarlet has six months to install the necessary software filters.

The action against Scarlet was instigated by Belgian music rights organisation Sabam, which has warned Scarlet's larger competitors that they should also install filters or face the consequences. Scarlet, which has just 175,000 subscribers, split between Belgium and the Netherlands, says it is going into battle to defend the rights of internet users.

The IPKat will be watching the outcome carefully. This is one of those cases that you hope won't settle, so we can see the side of the Great Divide in favour of which the court decides. Merpel says, this issue has been recognised as a problem for years; we've had an EU Directive on copyright in the information society, a second Directive on the liability of service providers and a third Directive on the enforcement of IP rights - yet somehow there doesn't seem to be any clear consensus as to the outcome, with the result that litigation breaks out all over the place at national level. Wouldn't this have been a great subject for clear, harmonised guidance from the start?

Scarlet Pimpernel here
Scarlet O'Hara (not a typo) here
Scarlet Letter here
A Study in Scarlet here
Little Scarlet here (strongly recommended)