Killer Is Dead

QR Reader

Tea and biscuit

Sachin Tendulkar

2 at the moment

Driving

Zahid

Yarana

589

198

566

105

Zimbabwe

Cairo

871

Companies behind popular movies such as "Tesla", "The Expendables 3" and "The Protege" are using a DMCA subpoena shortcut to expose alleged BitTorrent pirates. This option is much cheaper than filing regular lawsuits. While a clerk at a federal court in Hawaii signed the subpoena, this strategy is not undisputed. pirate-flagTracking BitTorrent pirates is relatively easy since IP addresses are broadcasted publicly. With help from Internet providers, these addresses can then be linked to an account holder. ISPs don’t hand over this data voluntarily, however; they typically require a subpoena or court order to take action. In the United States, these subpoenas are obtained by filing a copyright complaint in federal court against a “John Doe” who’s known only by an IP address. Most of these cases are filed against a single person which makes it a relatively expensive process. The filing fee for these cases is over $400 with no guarantees that this money will be recouped in the end. The fact that new lawsuits continue to be filed suggests that it’s worth it, but rightsholders are also trying alternative routes. Filmmakers Target 63 IP-addresses A few days ago, a group of film companies tied to well-known movies such as “After We Collided”, “Tesla”, “The Expendables 3” and “The Protege”, requested a DMCA subpoena at the federal court of Hawaii. The legal paperwork targets Centurylink and comes with a long list of 63 IP addresses, some of which downloaded multiple films. ip-address The goal of the subpoena request isn’t to pursue a copyright claim in court, as we see with traditional BitTorrent lawsuits. Instead, the film companies will likely use the information to offer a direct settlement to the alleged pirates. This is a relatively cheap shortcut as large groups of pirates can be combined in one request, for which the total filing fee is under $50. In addition, these subpoenas are not reviewed by a judge and only require a signature from the court clerk. In recent years we have occasionally seen these requests pop up. Initially, these attempts failed, in part due to jurisprudence that was established following the RIAA’s mass lawsuits nearly two decades ago. Clever but Controversial Shortcut? The RIAA’s legal campaign was aimed to make pirates feel vulnerable so targeting large groups of file-sharers was a must. To save costs, the RIAA, therefore, used DMCA subpoenas to identify the alleged infringers. ISPs were not happy with this trend and objected. They argued that DMCA subpoenas are only valid when an Internet service stores or links to the infringing content, not when they merely pass on traffic. Various courts have agreed with ISPs since and effectively banned the practice in the early 2000s. If copyright holders want to go after alleged pirates, they have to file a complaint and request a regular subpoena, the message was. The filmmakers who requested the subpoenas last week are aware of the jurisprudence. However, attorney Kerry Culpepper argues that the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court, which Hawaii falls under, never ruled on the ‘mere conduit’ issue in a case like this. Hence, it’s an open question. In fact, the attorney argues that more recent decisions suggest that the subpoenas may apply in these instances. For example, in repeat infringer cases against ISPs such as Cox and Grande, courts have concluded that DMCA notices are valid and apply to conduit providers. This argument has to be tested in court but, for now , Internet provider Centurylink doesn’t seem inclined to challenge it. This means that the personal information of the affected subscribers will be handed over to the movie companies. Warned While the use of DMCA subpoenas against pirating subscribers is relatively rare, the filing rate and the number or targeted subscribers is growing. Earlier this year, filmmakers already requested Centurylink to hand over information on 13 alleged pirates, and not much later another DMCA subpoena targeted an additional 40 subscribers. That number has now gone up to 63. For the affected subscribers the allegations shouldn’t come as a complete surprise, as they have all been targeted by piracy notifications in the past. In the most recent filing, there’s one IP address that received a dozen ‘warnings’ for pirating “The Protege” in the span of a month. Another IP address received six warnings, all for different films. Whether these cases will indeed lead to settlements will remain unknown. Now that the subpoena is granted, there will be no further updates through the court. However, we expect that the account holders will be asked to pay damages, ranging from a few hundreds dollars, to potentially thousands.

After 10 years of legal battles following the closure of Megaupload, Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk have reached a deal with the authorities that will see them avoid extradition and face charges in New Zealand instead. Kim Dotcom says he won't accept "injustice" and will keep fighting against extradition to the United States. megauploadJanuary 2, 2022 marked the 10-year anniversary of the dramatic shutdown of Megaupload and other properties in the file-sharing and streaming empire of Kim Dotcom. For much of that time, Kim Dotcom and co-defendants Mattias Ortmann, Bram van der Kolk and Finn Batato have fought extradition to the United States to face copyright infringement, racketeering and money laundering charges. Over time, however, extradition has been slowly taken off the table for most of the main defendants. Former Megaupload marketing manager Batato previously had his extradition case dropped on health grounds and today it was the turn of both Ortmann and van der Kolk to reveal that they too will avoid the US justice system. “New Zealand is Our Home Now” In a joint statement published via Mega Limited, the New Zealand file-sharing service where Ortmann and van der Kolk now play key roles, the pair recall that after a Supreme Court decision in 2021, they were both ruled eligible for extradition to the United States. Their case was referred to NZ Minister of Justice Kris Fa’afoi for a final and potentially difficult decision. The details of what happened next have not been revealed but the key outcome is that Ortmann and van der Kolk will not be extradited to the United States, albeit with significant strings attached. “New Zealand is our home now and we want to stay here. The continuing uncertainty associated with the extradition case has taken a heavy toll on our lives and the time has come to move on,” their statement reads. “Accordingly, we have reached an agreement with the New Zealand Government and the United States of America under which we have agreed to be charged in New Zealand for offenses similar to those we face in the United States. Once those charges are heard by the New Zealand courts, the United States will withdraw its extradition proceedings against us.” Given that they are now involved in a new legal process, the pair say they will be making no further comment. The same cannot be said for Kim Dotcom, the most high-profile of the Megaupload defendants, who remains eligible for extradition and could face decades in prison in the US. Dotcom: “Former Friends” Will Give Evidence Against Me In a series of tweets responding to the news this morning, Kim Dotcom offered his congratulations to Ortmann and van der Kolk for avoiding the “terrible US justice system”, noting that he doesn’t blame his “former friends” and understands why they have “given up.” Quite when the friendship between the men ended is unclear. They haven’t been seen in public or pictured privately together for years but Dotcom predicts they will now admit liability and help in the case against him. “My co-defendants in the Megaupload copyright case, Mathias and Bram, have made a deal with the US and New Zealand Government to accept liability and to become witnesses against me. They will be charged in New Zealand and will no longer face extradition to the United States,” Dotcom writes. dotcom-twitter-extradite “I’m now the last man standing in this fight and I will continue to fight because unlike my co-defendants I won’t accept the injustice we have been subjected to,” Dotcom continues. “If I have to go to jail for what Megaupload users did on our site then many Big Tech CEOs are in the same boat with me.” What Next For The Megaupload Defendants? Dotcom has a reputation as a fighter and may yet pull several rabbits out of multiple hats to a) avoid extradition or b) pull off an extraordinary win in the United States, should he ever be sent there. At this stage and after a decade of battles and tens of millions of dollars spent in his defense, nothing can be ruled out. But where once there were many diverse options for a counter-attack, opportunities seem to be narrowing. By appearing to rule out any deal that would find him liable for wrongdoing either in New Zealand or the United States, Dotcom will necessarily find himself up against legal systems and successive governments that he has continuously labeled as corrupt. Dotcom’s default stance is that his business was destroyed by Hollywood with vital help from President Biden so in response and over many years, Dotcom has launched personal attacks on both Biden and members of his family. The same can be said of multiple politicians in New Zealand too. According to Dotcom, he cannot get a fair trial anywhere. This has undoubtedly turned Dotcom into a political hot potato, one that refuses to lie down and says he will reject any deal, even if one was offered to him. On the other hand, the positions of Ortmann and van der Kolk, who have remained largely silent for the last 10 years, are much more certain and at least relatively free from the political complications surrounding Dotcom. The charges the pair will face in New Zealand are yet to be reported but if they are brought under the Copyright Act, financial penalties of up to NZ$10,000 for “every infringing copy” but not exceeding NZ$150,000 “in respect of the same transaction” are available. The defendants could alternatively face up to five years in prison but if we take Dotcom’s claims at face value, a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity seems to be a foregone conclusion, so significant 25%+ reductions could apply. Add in the claim that the men are set to offer evidence against Dotcom and the fact they are not violent offenders, they could be eligible for release after serving a third of any sentence. Previously, Estonian programmer Andrus Nomm, who reportedly earned $3,200 per month at Megaupload, pleaded guilty to criminal copyright infringement in the United States where sentences are usually much harsher. He was sentenced to a year and a day in prison after going on record that Dotcom and his former colleagues knowingly profited from copyright infringement.

A man who was wrongfully accused of pirating several adult films has finally recouped $108k in fees and costs from copyright holder Malibu Media. After the company failed to pay the full amount voluntarily, the defense had to hire a collection attorney to get the money indirectly through Malibu's payment processors. troll signAdult entertainment outfit Malibu Media has often been characterized as a copyright-trolling operation. The Los Angeles company, known for its popular “X-Art” brand, has gone after thousands of alleged file-sharers in U.S. courts, collecting millions of dollars in settlements. Not too long ago Malibu was one of the most active anti-piracy litigants in the U.S., but in recent years this activity ground to a halt. However, there was one case that continued, and not because Malibu wanted it to. The case in question started in 2018, when Malibu Media accused Mr. Mullins of downloading 11 pirated videos. The defendant fought back and contested the evidence up to the point where Malibu Media agreed to dismiss its claims, but that wasn’t enough. The defense wanted to see the company’s piracy evidence but this was never presented, despite a court order. That frustrated the court, the accused subscriber, and even Malibu’s own attorney, who withdrew from the case because her client failed to comply. Wrongfully Accused ‘Pirate’ Wins After several back and forths, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Durkin eventually handed a win to Mr. Mullins. Last year, the court ordered Malibu to pay $48,656.73 in costs and attorneys’ fees. When Malibu initially failed to pay, the total amount owed more than doubled to $108,271. These rulings were a major win for the wrongfully accused ‘pirate’ and his legal team. In fact, it is one of the largest judgments we’ve seen in these types of cases. While the defense was pleased with the outcome, recouping the money wasn’t easy. Malibu didn’t pay the required amount and on top of that, actively diverted funds that should have been used to pay these fees. To recover the money owed, the defendant hired collection attorney Joseph Stewart, who obtained a restraining order that required Malibu Media and its payment processors to restrain the “X-Art.com Proceeds.” $108k Recouped The extra work increased the initial judgment from $48,656.73 in costs and attorneys’ fees to $108,271. After several turnover orders, the full amount was eventually recouped through payment processors Epoch and CC Bill last month. “The undersigned attorney for the judgment creditor certifies and acknowledges full payment of both judgments, as well as all costs and interest,” collection attorney Joseph Stewart informed the court. malibu paid The defendant’s attorney, J. Curtis Edmondson is pleased with the outcome and stresses that his client should have never ended up in the situation. “Malibu Media never provided any evidence that the Defendant infringed, but still claimed this was the case even after the Court ruled in the Defendant’s favor. This claim by Colette Pelissier, Malibu’s owner, after judgment was entered, was a bald-faced lie,” Edmondson tells TorrentFreak. According to the attorney, Malibu’s boss has been lying since “Day 1” when she claimed that the company didn’t use the court system as the primary source to generate revenue. “In the post-judgment proceedings, before Judge Durkin, it was demonstrated that very little income was from their websites and licensing. Malibu Media used the court system as their primary source of income.” Malibu’s Boss is Disgusted Malibu Media boss Colette Pelissier, meanwhile isn’t happy with how things went down. She doesn’t believe that the former defendant is entitled to the compensation and previously accused the denfense of “extortion” and “unjust enrichment”. A few days before the full amount was paid off, Pelissier wrote another scathing letter to the court. This time, she added The Hollywood Reporter, The New Yorker, and The Chicago Sun Times as recipients as well. None of these mainstream publications appear to have covered the letter, which urged the court to cancel the turnover order, with Malibu’s boss suggesting that she wasn’t properly heard. “I am disgusted with Chicago’s judicial system and the citation to discover assets that they will send to anyone who needs to pay you, then make a deal with them. We have had a 10 year relationship not pay us since June.” “I implore you to have that turnover order cancelled [sic] and a hearing held, where we have time to discuss the real issues,” Pelissier added. Despite the letter and the outspoken critique, the turnover order wasn’t scrapped. Although Malibu refused to pay voluntarily, the payment processors used by the company restrained the funds and eventually handed them over to the defendant, effectively ending the case. Pelissier informed TorrentFreak today that she believes that the court clearly made the wrong decisions in this case, which we may not have heard the last of. “Mullins and Peacock’s pathetic attempts at extortion did not go unnoticed and we will be filing retaliatory litigation against ALL involved. Malibu, X-Art.com and myself want to thank all of our supporters who have stood by us for so long!” she says. Pelissier plans to keep X-Art.com members informed about the matter, answering questions during live sessions on the platform. “I will be doing something super special for everyone. Down with corruption and lies. Don’t be a sheep. More later!”

Republican Senator Josh Hawley just introduced a bill that proposes to shorten the copyright term to 56 years. This will apply retroactively to major movie studios with Disney being a prime target. The plan appears to be an indirect attempt to punish Disney for its politics, including the opposition to Florida's “Don’t Say Gay” law. mickeyOver the past decades, copyright protection terms have gradually been extended all around the world. In the United States, copyrights are currently enforceable for 70 years after the author’s death. If something was made for hire, protection is available for 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation, whichever is shorter. These terms were last changed in the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, which is also dubbed the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act”. This is a reference to Disney’s famous cartoon character, whose original copyright protections were about to expire. New Bill Proposes to Shorten the Copyright Term Today, more than two decades later, “Steamboat Willie” is at risk again. However, instead of extending the copyright term even further, Republican Senator Josh Hawley has just proposed a bill that would shorten it. The newly introduced “Copyright Clause Restoration Act” proposes to lower the copyright term for new copyrights to 56 years. This change would also apply retroactively to companies with a market cap of over $150 billion and are part of the movie or entertainment industries. copyright bill The latter conditions single out the major copyright companies including Disney. This is not without reason, as the official announcement on the Senator’s website calls out the media giant as well. “Senator Hawley’s bill would limit new copyright protections to 56 years and make the change retroactive for massive corporations like Disney that have been granted unnecessarily long copyright monopolies,” it reads. Woke Politics? The proposal to limit the copyright term is not just about encouraging creativity. It is partly motivated by Disney’s opposition to Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which has angered many Republican lawmakers. Previously, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill that would end Disney’s tax benefits, motivated by the same reason. Commenting on his own proposal, Senator Hawley also calls out Disney for its “woke” stance. “The age of Republican handouts to Big Business is over. Thanks to special copyright protections from Congress, woke corporations like Disney have earned billions while increasingly pandering to woke activists. “It’s time to take away Disney’s special privileges and open up a new era of creativity and innovation,” the Senator adds. Mickey in Danger? The Copyright Clause Restoration Act is, without doubt, a far-reaching proposal that, if passed, could have wide-ranging implications. However, the Republicans don’t have a majority in the Senate so that seems unlikely. The bill also appears to conflict with the Berne convention, a key copyright treaty that was signed by many countries including the US. According to the treaty, the minimum copyright protection term should be 50 years after the author’s death. Even if the copyright term was indeed limited, Mickey Mouse won’t enter the public domain in its entirety. All later creations of the character remain protected, including all films and other media that were created more recently. That said, Disney and other major rightsholders won’t be happy with Senator Hawley’s proposal. Whether it will change their political views and comments is another matter entirely.

This week former Megaupload operators Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk revealed that instead of being extradited to the United States to face copyright-related charges, their case will now be handled in New Zealand. As Kim Dotcom vows to keep fighting extradition, he says that he too should be given the same right. Of course, nothing is straightforward. kim fugitiveOften described as the biggest case in copyright history, the so-called ‘Mega Conspiracy’ battle has been living up to its billing since 2012. For at least a decade, Kim Dotcom and co-defendants Mattias Ortmann, Bram van der Kolk, and Finn Batato faced a mountain of charges in the United States, a country that has never been visited by the former. More recently, however, there has been a significant shift in positions, meaning that just one of the quartet still faces being shipped there against their will. Former Megaupload marketing manager Batato previously had his extradition case dropped on health grounds and yesterday Ortmann and van der Kolk revealed that they too will avoid the US justice system, despite being ruled eligible for extradition by New Zealand’s Supreme Court. The men said they had reached an agreement with the New Zealand Government and the United States to face charges in New Zealand instead. Once their ‘new’ case is heard in a local court, extradition proceedings will be dropped, meaning that just one person will remain a ‘Mega Conspiracy’ fugitive according to the US. The Fugitive Fighter & Former Friends The charges against Ortmann and van der Kolk are believed to have been filed this week. The men say they are “similar” to those brought against them in the United States but the world will have to wait a little longer to discover exactly what they are and, crucially, what kind of plea the defendants will subsequently enter. In the meantime, Dotcom says he knows how things will play out. According to the Megaupload founder, his former friends will “admit liability” and “become witnesses” against him. There is no public information to confirm these predictions but if they do turn out to be accurate, Dotcom’s case could become even more complicated than it is now. Dotcom says that, unlike his co-defendants, he will never accept the injustices that all four of them have suffered so his plan is to fight on. There’s no reason to doubt that claim given Dotcom’s track record but that raises the question of what the split parties are now fighting for and what that means for their respective futures. Uncertainty is Inevitable – But Can Be Managed Ortmann and van der Kolk (who are on record as wanting to “move on”) no longer have to fight extradition, so in one sense they are already ahead of Dotcom. Their next challenge will be to deal with the charges against them by either mounting a full defense or admitting guilt, as Dotcom has suggested. That raises more questions. In the last few hours, Dotcom said that if Ortmann and van der Kolk do admit liability, that will go against what they have argued all along, i.e none of the defendants in the “Mega Conspiracy” did anything illegal. “My co-defendants don’t believe that they are criminals or members of an organized criminal group, they have said so repeatedly and that’s the truth,” Dotcom wrote. Of course, the law allows defendants to change their position and in this case, it remains unclear what (if anything) they will admit liability for in a new set of charges. So what then of Dotcom’s claim that Ortmann and van der Kolk will “become witnesses” against him, potentially undermining his legal position? “My co-defendants can’t help the DOJ [US Department of Justice]. We have hours of recorded conversations with them that make any testimony against me worthless. My co-defendants are aware of the recordings. I wonder if they disclosed that to the DOJ. Probably not,” Dotcom added. With Ortmann and van der Kolk’s extradition battle all but over, questions are being raised over why they are in a seemingly favorable position and Dotcom is not. That should become clearer when the new charges are revealed and their official responses heard. In the meantime, Dotcom says that if they have the legal right to be put on trial in New Zealand, so should he. A New Zealand Jury Could Be Of Interest Dotcom claims that his co-defendants have made a “deal of convenience” but if they can have their case heard in New Zealand courts, he should have that opportunity too. “My legal team may try to have my case heard in New Zealand Courts too, with a jury of New Zealanders,” Dotcom says. “The difference is I would never accept any charges and I will defend myself to clear my name. If New Zealand can decide the case of my co-defendants I should have the same right.” While Dotcom’s massively talented and extremely expensive legal team will explore any and all available options, the “agreement” reached by Dotcom’s colleagues with New Zealand and US authorities suggests that some kind of negotiation has taken place. In New Zealand, the prosecution and defense can reach an understanding on what charges will result in a guilty plea. Actioned before trial, the prosecutor may reduce the number of charges and/or charge the defendant(s) with less serious offenses. Other implications are the reduction of costs for all parties and the securing of a conviction, something a trial cannot guarantee. Appropriate sentencing is decided by the court but a guilty plea for non-violent crimes can also yield significant sentencing discounts. However, the issue with all of the above is that in Dotcom’s case, he is absolutely insistent he has done nothing wrong and won’t accept anything that doesn’t fully recognize that. It’s a tough position to incorporate into any agreement requiring quid pro quos. Nevertheless, Dotcom says the shift in his co-defendants’ position means that “a new portal has opened” for his case too. That will no doubt be explored from every conceivable legal angle but in the meantime, he’s criticizing governments both at home and abroad for the very existence of his predicament. “The reality is the New Zealand Govt has allowed itself to become a party to a corrupt White House conspiracy to destroy #Megaupload in exchange for Hollywood donations to the Obama and Biden 2012 re-election campaign,” he concludes.

Hey, welcome to invitehawk, enjoy your stay here, feel free to ask.

Hey, welcome to invitehawk, enjoy your stay here, feel free to ask.

Hey, welcome to invitehawk, enjoy your stay here, feel free to ask.

Hey, welcome to invitehawk, enjoy your stay here, feel free to ask.

Hey, welcome to invitehawk, enjoy your stay here, feel free to ask.