Welcome

Welcome to the Cashman Law Firm, P.L.L.C. blog covering intellectual property topics such as patent law and patent litigation. We are located at 5142 Darnell St., Houston, TX 77096. Our phone number is 713-364-3476.

While scrolling down to view the law content, articles, opinions, and blog postings, please feel free to e-mail me with any questions you may have.

Cashman Law Firm, PLLC, a Houston, TX law firm helps clients protect their inventions by filing for a patent, enforce their inventions when companies try to steal or infringe the patents [through licensing, negotiations, sale, or if necessary, a patent litigation suit], and protects the inventor and his company by protecting the inventor's assets, property, or home against foreclosure should it become in the inventor's interest to close up shop and file bankruptcy.

If you have any questions about the articles in this blog, feel free to
e-mail me at rzcashman@cashmanlawfirm.com.

***Again, please scroll down to view the articles.***

Monday, February 8, 2016

Does Malibu Media leak its porn before the release?

Malibu Media, LLC has formed a habit of suing defendants for downloads that appear on the bittorrent networks literally a day or so after they are supposedly “published” on their website. The videos themselves are not copyrighted often for another three-months.

When questioned about this tactic, they claim that their activities are legitimate because U.S. copyright law gives a content creator up to three months after “publication” to file their copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office. They are correct about this three-month rule.

However, I am convinced that their stated “publication” is really no publication at all. It’s a scam to make the accused downloader think that Malibu Media, LLC has copyright rights over ALL of the videos they claim in their “list” of infringed videos, including even those videos that were “published” just a day or so before they appeared on the bittorrent websites.

Why do I think that Malibu Media is faking their “publication” requirement in their lawsuits? Because according to the statutory definition of “Publication,” posting a new porn video onto their website is more of a “public performance,” and that does not satisfy the requirement for “publication.” (see, 17 U.S. Code § 101 – Definitions).

Here is the text of the statute:

“Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.

In sum, I suspect that there is a legal argument that “publication” is not actually happening with the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits. While I have not hashed this out yet completely, I have been working on this theory for some time now, and I believe it may be a viable argument. However, for those attorneys who troll this blog and will immediately jump on me saying “of course it is published,” step out of your box and come over to my side of the room. The view is a bit better here.

I am merely mentioning this issue as food for thought. Anyone who wants to contribute to this legal argument, I’m more than willing to hash this out. And of course, read SJD’s article because it demonstrates the publication issue very nicely.

Fight © Trolls

It was proven beyond any doubt that Prenda seeded their smut on Bittorent to entrap hapless file-sharers. Given the striking similarities between Prenda and Guardley-driven copyright shakedown outfits, including Lipscomb/X-Art/Malibu Media, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to believe that the Karlsruhe-Miami-Malibu cartel’s hands are not so clean in this respect either. Indeed, numerous defense attorneys asserted that Malibu either seeds their porn itself, or someone does it with its blessing. Even Jordan Rushie, before he started doing errands for Lipscomb, suggested that

When considering litigating the “swarm theory,” Malibu was faced with the prospect of dozens of defendants, joined in their common defense against the plaintiff, with an initial seeder who very well may have had a license to publish the works to BitTorrent or elsewhere. [FN: Malibu’s investigation company, IPP, Ltd., was previously called Guardaley, Ltd. While it had that name, it was accused of being the seeder for swarms…

View original post 1,295 more words


Filed under: Copyright Trolls, Malibu Media LLC, P2P, Peer-to-peer, Torrent Tagged: copyright, copyright troll, John Doe, Malibu Media, Publication

via WordPress http://ift.tt/1SEXKvt

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Beware of the defense attorney “copyright trolls” too.

I started writing this article because there is too much conflicting information floating around the web (likely from attorneys who are trying to use fear tactics to scare you into settling with their firm), and my point was that there are credible websites, such as “Fight Copyright Trolls,” “Die Troll Die,” and a few others who have been helping individuals understand that IGNORING A COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CLAIM AGAINST YOU CAN OFTEN BE A VIABLE OPTION TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM (WITHOUT SPENDING $$$$ ON A LAWYER), so beware of the attorneys who tell you that you will lose your home, your life savings, or any other fear-of-embarrassment-and-exposure-or-financial-ruin-based argument as to “why you should settle anonymously through them for cheap, or else you might lose everything.”

I circled back to this topic in the end, but this article ended up being a “buyer beware of attorney settlement factories” article, where an attorney or his team of lawyers is trying to lure you into being part of their high-volume settlement business.  In this article, I give you the red flags to look for to spot these attorneys, and I hope this helps clarify some of the conflicting information you get from speaking to different attorneys where one attorney pushes you to settle and where another (e.g., I) suggest that you just ignore it.

“SETTLEMENT FACTORIES” are what I call these law firms. These law firms hire multiple attorneys to track down, solicit, and lure accused defendants into hiring them “for a cheap and anonymous settlement.” From a business perspective, more attorneys for the business owner means the ability to make more phone calls to solicit more accused defendants [to process more settlements], and the ability to “capture” more clients for their law firm means more profits. And, rather than actually negotiate a good settlement for their client, they run what I refer to as a “volume business” where they pre-arrange a price with the copyright holder which is above the market (copyright troll profits). Then, instead of actually negotiating a settlement, they’ll hand over the names to the plaintiff attorney and get the high-priced mediocre settlement for their client.  In return, the copyright troll allows that so-called attorney to not have to negotiate the settlement for each client, since they have a “fixed settlement amount.”  As far as I am concerned, this means that the so-called defense attorneys are part of the copyright troll problem, in a “cottage industry” sort of fashion.

What compounds the problem is that negotiating the settlement is only HALF of the solution. The SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT itself must also be negotiated, particularly because the “boilerplate” settlement agreements contain ADMISSIONS OF GUILT and UNFRIENDLY LANGUAGE which does not properly release the client from liability, nor does it properly protect the client’s rights.

For me, where writing this article will become infuriating is that suddenly these attorneys and their “beefed up” staff of hired attorneys will now start advertising 1) that they spend the time to actively negotiate the best settlement for their client, and 2) that they take the careful time to negotiate the terms of the settlement agreement so that the accused John Doe Defendant will be released from liability and the negotiated terms will properly protect the client’s rights.

If I see this, all I could say is “caveat emptor,” do your own research on:

1) How long that attorney has been in practice [REMEMBER: “Copyright Troll” mass bittorrent lawsuits targeting multiple “John Doe” defendants have only been in existence only since 2010, so any attorney who claims he has been fighting copyright trolls for 20 years is obviously lying.],

2) Check the attorney’s blog to see the HISTORY of his articles — was he one of the first attorneys who fought these cases, or is he a new “me too” copycat attorney who is standing on the shoulders of giants? (after reading this, no doubt these attorney will now add “older” articles to make their website look older), and

3) Check the blog article itself for “SEO OPTIMIZED” content, or “KEYWORDS” placed into the article.  Ask yourself, “was the purpose of this article to provide me valuable information? or was the purpose of the article to bulk it up with keywords so that search engine spiders will reward the author with first page rankings on the search engines?

4) Last, but not least, check the EARLY ARTICLES of the blog to see whether the attorney actually tried to fight these cases and hash out the legal arguments, or whether they were merely reporting on the lawsuits already in existence to attract new business.  I call these attorneys “me too” attorneys, and you can usually spot them because all they do is report the cases.

NOTE: I write this article cringing a bit because I myself just added an e-mail form at the bottom of my articles so that people can contact me if they had a question. I also dislike trashing another attorney or law firm because that simply makes me look bad. I also have a secret, and that is that I was one of the first group of attorneys contacted by EFF to figure out the “John Doe” mass bittorrent lawsuits, and so I have an advantage over the “me too attorney” both legally and information-wise as to the history of these cases, who is who, and which copyright “troll” uses which strategy in fighting a case, and under what conditions will a copyright holder accept a settlement, and how far they will bend in their settlement price. I also spend a lot of time on what I call “situational awareness,” knowing not only the law, and not only the personality of the copyright holder AND the mannerisms of the local copyright attorney hired to sue defendants in a particular set of federal courts, but I also know when a judge is going to dismiss a case (based on his past rulings), and I know when the copyright holder’s local counsel is pressured because of activities that happened in other cases, or whether they are under pressure to resolve a case because they have already have asked for two extensions from the court and I know they will likely not receive a third extension because the judge has expressed an intent for the plaintiff to begin naming and serving defendants.  This is the difference between a copycat and an original.

I also say with no shame that in 2010, I and a small handful of attorneys were contacted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (better known as EFF) to help understand and resolve the developing copyright troll problem back when ISPs began sending letters out to their subscribers informing them that their ISP would be handing out their contact information and their identity to the plaintiff attorney / copyright holders unless they filed objections (or, “motions to quash”) with the courts. Thus, I credit the EFF for even noticing the copyright troll problem and contacting us to figure out what to do about it.

Unfortunately (or, fortunately, however you see it), that initial list of 20 attorneys has grown to over 100+ names, and some attorneys have negotiated with EFF to list them as representing clients in multiple states, hence increasing their visibility in an ever-growing list of lawyers. These are usually the “settlement factories” I referenced above, and again, caveat emptor.

Let’s pretend, for a moment, that you did not like me or my use of pretrial strategies (often making use of federal procedure) to defend a client. Or, let’s pretend for a moment that I could not take you as a client (e.g., because my case load was full, or because I did not have time to speak to you about your matter). Because there were only a handful of us attorneys on the original EFF list who knew anything about these copyright infringement lawsuits, over the years, we have become friends and have helped each other out on many of the lawsuits in which we represented both John Doe Defendants and “named and served” defendants. Some of these attorneys are still around today, and some have moved on to other areas of law, or they have stopped taking clients because fighting mass bittorrent cases has become more burdensome than the effort was worth (especially when some copyright holders do not play fairly in discovery [think, Malibu Media, LLC]).

Finding “that special client who will pay my fees to fight this case to trial” for many attorneys has become an unrealized pipe dream, and is something us attorneys often discuss.  If you truly want to fight your case, I have nothing wrong with either me, or anyone else I trust representing you in your lawsuit (I will happily tout another attorney’s merits and advanced skillsets when speaking to clients). AND, I will happily refer you to someone if I find that one of my peers would better assist you.  I *DO NOT* believe in referral fees, nor do I “share the workload” with other attorneys (this is code word for “I referred you this client, so pay me a piece of the legal fees you receive and call it paying me for my “proportional efforts.”), something that is often done in my field which, in my opinion, needs to stop. This is also why I have upset a handful of non-copyright attorneys who know nothing about these cases who have called me with a client they would like to refer to me (coincidentally, asking to share in the fees, but not in the work).

So in hindsight, while I thought I’d be reintroducing “copyright troll” subpoenas and basic copyright infringement concepts to clear up some conflicting information found on the web, instead I am providing a clear warning to those who are being actively solicited by law firms. A law firm simply should not be calling you or contacting you to solicit your business.

There is a lot of conflicting information on the web about copyright trolls, and what to do when you receive a subpoena from your ISP, what to do when you receive what is often known as a “DMCA notice” (usually signed at the bottom by Ira M. Siegel) that you have violated a copyright holder’s rights [by what is often the download of a “B-rated” film or more shockingly, that you have been accused or caught downloading pornography through the use of bittorrent (and you thought you were private), and now you want to settle the claims against you anonymously, or you want to make this go away as quickly as possible].

All I could say is STOP AND CONSIDER YOUR OPTIONS, BECAUSE IGNORING A CLAIM OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CAN OFTEN BE A GOOD IDEA (and, when I speak to clients, I do ask them questions about the claims against them, and IF THEY CAN IGNORE, I do suggest that they DO NOTHING.) Even in a lawsuit — DOING NOTHING MAY OFTEN BE YOUR BEST STRATEGIC MOVE, as counterintuitive as that might sound.

But when you are bombarded with attorneys and law firms who actively market their fear-based services by using “Google AdWords” (ethically or unethically “buying” more well known attorney’s names as keywords so that THEY show up at the top of a search when you search for another attorney after doing your own research on who to trust, yes, you know who you are), and those attorneys then have their “assistant” attorneys calling you and pushing you to anonymously settle the claims against you, think twice. Is this person trying to get you to be yet one more client in their “volume” business??

In every one of my calls, I discuss what I call the “ignore” option which in many people’s scenario is a viable option. In many cases, I even push a client towards the “ignore” side of things.

[NOTE: There are many political reasons I have for this, such as “not feeding the troll,” or “not funding their extortion-based scheme,” or simply because I have been trying to change the copyright laws to limit or hinder a copyright holder’s ability to accuse or sue an internet user for the violation of that copyright holder’s copyrights, but NONE OF THOSE REASONS ARE REASON WHY I SUGGEST SOMEONE I SPEAK TO IGNORES THE CLAIMS AGAINST THEM.]

Sometimes an individual’s circumstances allow them to ignore the lawsuit filed against them (or the copyright violation claimed against them in the DMCA notice) simply because of 1) the individual’s financial situation, 2) the location of their home, 3) the location of the plaintiff attorney, 4) whether that copyright holder authorizes his attorneys [and pays their fee] to “name and serve” defendants and move forward with trial, 5) for strategy purposes, e.g., the psychological impact of having one or more John Doe Defendants ignore the claims against them (while other defendants rush to settle in fear of being named and served), or 6) simply because ignoring is the better option in that person’s situation.

But my point, MY POINT, ***MY POINT*** IS CAVEAT EMPTOR. If the attorney you are speaking to is running your case as a volume business, or he is pushing you towards a “quick anonymous settlement” without showing you the merits of either 1) IGNORING, or 2) if in a lawsuit, defending the claims against you, beware, beware, beware.

The EFF list of attorneys who handle “mass bittorrent John Doe lawsuits for copyright infringement violations” has grown to over 100+ attorneys, and I have never even heard of some of these attorneys (which means that they are not defending cases, but rather, are running a volume-based settlement factory). I also see a number of names where I know for a fact that some of the attorneys listed in various states are NOT LICENSED to practice law in that state (neither on the state level, nor on the federal level) — this is a clear sign of being a volume-based settlement factory. I also know from my own experience defending clients that some of the attorney names on this list have switched sides and are now suing defendants.

…Just do your research, ok? And when a lawyer calls you, and then calls you again (and again), please ask yourself why they are following up with you.


Filed under: Copyright Enforcement Group (CEG-TEK), Copyright Troll Attorneys, Copyright Trolls, DMCA Scare Letters, Torrent Tagged: copyright troll, settlement factory

via WordPress http://ift.tt/1NBoXXy

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

PGP: WHERE TO GET AND HOW TO USE PGP ENCRYPTION.

Off the cuff, this is a post about PGP (a.k.a., “pretty good privacy”) and encryption.

When I was in college in the 1990’s, encryption was the easiest thing to set up. We’d download some freeware, set up a few encryption keys, upload the keys to the MIT servers, and send around “how are you, aren’t we cool because we’re using encryption” e-mails to friends and family. Little did we know those keys would be permanently there years later, and most of us lost our keys over the years, and forgot to set expiration dates on our keys (so my old college keys are still available somewhere on the net).

After a phone call today, I realized that after so many years, I have not used PGP, and I did not have a PGP key handy to encrypt an e-mail and its contents. “No problem,” I thought, I’ll just go online, grab the free software from Symantec, and I’ll set up a key and forward the documents. NO GO.

Symantec purchased the rights to the PGP software from Phil Zimmerman, and they TOOK AWAY the ability for individuals to set up PGP encryption on their machines (unless they purchase an elaborate suite of programs for $$$$). And, even if I wanted to purchase the software, they have made it next to impossible to acquire it using a few clicks, a credit card, and a website checkout.

Honestly, I have nothing wrong with companies selling premium features on top of their free software, but ENCRYPTION SOFTWARE SHOULD BE FREE!!! In order to have a free society where individuals can speak and express themselves freely without need to censor themselves in fear of a snooping government, encryption is needed! Because Symantec took away the ability for individuals to use PGP, in my opinion, this in my book is considered unethical and “mean” business practice. Shame on you, Symantec.

[ON A SIDE NOTE: I want to point out that in college Phil Zimmerman was my hero. Now on his “Where to get PGP” website, he states that he doesn’t care that PGP is no longer free, as long as Symantec kept the source code available to the public. Phil Zimmerman, for the reason that you have made it so that companies can make it difficult for users to access and use encryption, now almost twenty years later, you are no longer my hero.]

Since PGP has become monetized and corporatized for corporate profit and control, for those of you who want (and should) set up encryption, there is still a way. GnuPG (part of the OpenPGP Alliance) has made encryption available to Windows PC users using their GPG4win software. Essentially, the software appears to have originally been written for the Linux operating systems, but it has been ported for those of us that are still shackled to a Windows PC operating system.

 

HOW TO OBTAIN AND SET UP PGP SOFTWARE IN ORDER TO ENCRYPT AND DECRYPT YOUR MESSAGES AND FILES:

STEP 1: DOWNLOAD THE SOFTWARE.

The link to download the latest version of GPG4win is here:
http://ift.tt/1kTFfVH

STEP 2: CREATE A SET OF KEYS.

– For those of you more techy, the keys they set up are 2,048 bit keys, which are the standard for today’s encryption. However, technology does advance quickly, and if you are anything like me, you’ll want to use the 4,096 bit keys (which is more encryption than you’ll ever need, but why skimp on privacy when such a key is available?)

So if you want this stronger key, when the software asks you if you want to create keys, say “no,” click “File, New Certificate,” and click on the advanced settings. There, you will be able to 1) choose the heightened security 4,096 keys, along with 2) the ability to SET AN EXPIRATION DATE FOR YOUR KEYS.

STEP 3: SET AN EXPIRATION DATE FOR YOUR KEYS!!!!!

NOTE: All of us have set up keys, and have lost them due to computer malfunction, hard drive crash, or just losing the secret key files. ***IF YOU DO NOT SET AN EXPIRATION DATE ON YOUR KEYS, THEY WILL BE ON THE MIT SERVER FOREVER!!!*** And, you will be unable to delete the keys later on. So please! Set an expiration date on your keys. I set mine for 12/31/2016 (at the end of next year), and next year, I’ll set up another set of keys.

STEP 4: CREATE A REVOCATION CERTIFICATE BEFORE YOU UPLOAD YOUR KEYS TO THE SERVERS!

For some reason, the Kleopatra Windows PC software does not have an option to set up a revocation certificate so that you’ll be able to revoke (or inactivate) keys on the MIT server that you no longer use.

For this reason, and this is easy to do, the superuser.com website has described a way to set up a PGP key revocation certificate using a command terminal (“CMD”) code.

In short, open a terminal in Windows (using “Run, CMD”), and type the following:

gpg –output revoke.asc –gen-revoke [MY KEY-ID]

(NOTE: The MY KEY-ID is the “Key-ID” for the key you created using the Kleopatra software.)

Then save it somewhere where you cannot lose it. Print it out and save it offline if you need to.

STEP 5: UPLOAD YOUR NEW KEY TO THE MIT SERVER SO THAT OTHER PEOPLE CAN FIND YOUR KEY.

This is the step that you should be most careful about. Once you upload the key, it’s on the server forever (viewable at https://pgp.mit.edu/). So just double-check your steps before you take this step.

 

HOW TO USE PGP:

Once you’re all set up, you’re set for the life of your encryption keys (remember, I set mine to expire at the end of next year.)

Below are the steps to use PGP:

STEP 1: OBTAIN THE KEY OF THE PERSON YOU ARE SENDING YOUR MESSAGE OR FILE(S) TO FROM THE MIT SERVER.

You can search for their key by either:

1) On the Kleopatra software, click “File, Look Up Certificates on Server,” and then you would type in either their name or e-mail address and select which key you want to use (best to use their most recent key if there are multiple keys).

2) Alternatively, you can accomplish the same result by entering their name or e-mail address on the MIT server (https://pgp.mit.edu/). For example, for mine, you would search for rzcashman@cashmanlawfirm.com, and my key would show up.

STEP 2: WRITE YOUR MESSAGE AND ENCRYPT IT TO THE KEY OF THE PERSON YOU ARE SENDING IT TO.

On the Kleopatra software, you would click on the “Clipboard” button on the toolbar and select “Encrypt.” A new screen will open, and you’ll write your message.

Once you have written your message, click on the “Add Recipient” button and select the key of the person you are sending the e-mail to. Remember, you did this in STEP 1.

STEP 3: COPY AND PASTE THE ENCRYPTED TEXT INTO AN E-MAIL.

This is the easy part. Once you have the message you wrote encrypted to the key of the person to whom you wrote the message, a string of letters will appear in your window. Copy and paste it (all of it) into an e-mail.

REMEMBER, encryption protects the CONTENTS of an e-mail not the META DATA, meaning, it only protects the contents of what you wrote. It does not protect who you wrote it to, or what server you were logged into when you sent the encrypted text. This was part of the issue with the NSA claiming that they were “only” pulling meta data, and not the contents of the e-mail themselves.

NOTE: If you also encrypted a file to attach to the e-mail [I did not describe how to do this yet], attach the .gpg file that your software created as an attachment to the e-mail. The person to whom you encrypted the e-mail will be able to decrypt the attachment as well as the contents of your e-mail.

STEP 4: THE RECIPIENT OF THE E-MAIL DECRYPTS YOUR E-MAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS

Since you encrypted your message with the intention that only the recipient sees it, when he receives your e-mail (and any encrypted attachments you also sent), he will be able to use his own software to decrypt what you have sent to him.

Why is this possible? Because you encrypted the contents of your message to his key, and thus only he can unencrypt and read your message. When he replies to you, he will write the text into his software, and he will encrypt the message (and any files he also wants to attach) using YOUR key that he pulled off of the server, and he’ll send it over to you.

 

ENCRYPTING FILES:

Encrypting one file at a time using the Kleopatra software can be done by clicking “File, Sign / Encrypt Files.” From there, another window will open up, where you can select which file to encrypt. When the software asks for whom you would like to encrypt the file, just use the key of the person to whom you want to send the file. The software will make an encrypted copy of the file in the same folder, just with the .gpg file type. Use that file when sending the encrypted file in an e-mail as an attachment.

If you want to encrypt the file using your own key file (meaning, only you can unlock it), you may (for example, if you are sending yourself a private file to be accessed somewhere else). But if you only want the encrypted file to remain on your computer, remember to manually delete the original file, or you’ll have both the original and encrypted files in the same directory.

ENCRYPTING MULTIPLE FILES, OR FOLDERS, OR ENTIRE HARD DRIVES:

The topic of encrypting entire files, folders, or entire hard drives is outside the scope of this article. Doing so requires software such as Truecrypt, and it is a different process than encrypting and decrypting e-mails and messages using PGP as we have described here.

ENJOY!

TERMINOLOGY: There are two PGP encryption keys that you create when you set up your “key pair” — a “public” key and a “private” key. The public key is the one that is uploaded to the server, and if you provide someone your encryption key for them to send you e-mails or files, it is ALWAYS the public key that you send to them. The “private” or “secret” key is the one that remains with you or on your computer, and it is used to decrypt messages and files that were encrypted to your public key. Never give out your private key to anyone.


Filed under: Encryption and Privacy Tagged: encryption, openpgp, PGP, privacy, symantec

via WordPress http://ift.tt/1HGGz8J

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Can I get caught viewing streamed copyrighted videos?

QUESTION: CAN I BE SUED FOR ACCESSING STREAMING CONTENT?

Last month, I wrote an article entitled, “Whether internet porn viewers ‘should expect viewing histories to be made public.”  The fear that prompted that article was that someone could hack into the logs of a porn-streaming website, and with that information, expose the porn viewing habits of millions of Americans.  The conclusion of that article was that it would be difficult for a hacker to hack into a website which streams adult content, steal the website’s logs containing the IP addresses of those who have viewed the web pages which stream the videos, and then somehow correlate that IP address list with the actual identities of the internet users.  Thus, I do not expect to see any Ashley Madison hacks for websites streaming copyrighted content anytime soon.

The next question people asked was, “can I be sued for viewing copyrighted content on a YouTube-like site?”  In short, the answer is yes, you can be sued, but it will likely never happen.  Here’s why:

POINT #1: A COPYRIGHT HOLDER WOULD LIKELY NOT BE ABLE TO OBTAIN THE IP ADDRESSES OF THOSE WHO VIEWED THE WEBSITE STREAMING THE CONTENT.

While a hacker would likely be able to obtain the IP address records from a pornography website’s analytics through theft, a copyright enforcement company such as CEG-TEK or RightsCorp would be unable to get this information without 1) a court order, or 2) the cooperation of the adult website itself.  The reason for this is that 1) porn website owners are notoriously outside the U.S., and thus, they are outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. federal courts.  The copyright holders could try suing the website owners, but this is often a difficult task (finding an elusive website owner outside the U.S. is a much more difficult task than suing internet users who participate in a bittorrent swarm to obtain files using BitTorrent).

While the analytics companies could be sued and forced to disclose the list of IP addresses for a particular website, this is also an unlikely scenario because complying with such a court order directing them to turn over records for one of their clients’ websites could be 1) illegal, and 2) it could put them in jeopardy of being sued by their customer.  So this is not a likely outcome.

Secondly, the copyright holders could “join forces” with the website owners to participate in the financial earnings of going after the downloaders (alternatively, they could be outright paid to disclose this information), but again, doing so would put the websites own visitors (their own customers) in financial jeopardy, and thus they would likely not participate in such a scheme.

 

In short, it is unlikely that a copyright holder would be able to obtain this needed list of IP addresses of those who viewed certain copyrighted content, and thus, with a streaming site, the copyright holders would likely not be able to learn who you are.

NOTE: It is still advisable to use a VPN when accessing a site streaming content, because your own ISP could be monitoring your web viewing habits, and they ARE in the U.S., and they could be sued and/or pressured to hand over “evidence” that your account visited a particular web page at a certain date and time.  It is unlikely this would ever happen, but it is best to err on the side of caution.
POINT #2: ALL LAWSUITS TO DATE HAVE BEEN FOR BITTORRENT ACTIVITY.  I HAVE NEVER (YET) SEEN A LAWSUIT SUING SOMEONE WHO VIEWED A PARTICULAR VIDEO ON A PARTICULAR WEBSITE.

To date [and as far as I am aware], all of the copyright infringement lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Courts (the federal courts) across the U.S. have been for BITTORRENT ACTIVITY.

With very few exceptions where the copyright holder identified and sued the UPLOADER (the one who POSTED the video onto the website) based on a watermark or secret code embedded into the copyrighted video that identified the accused infringer as being the one who disseminated the copyrighted materials, there has never been a “John Doe” bittorrent lawsuit against a downloader who got caught by viewing content streamed on a YouTube-like website.  This is not to say that there will not be one in the future based on future internet fingerprint IDs forced upon internet users by government entities, or the like.

 

Thus, copyright holders have not yet and likely will never go through the initial step of 1) suing the website owner to obtain the list of IP addresses, and for this reason, I have not seen and do not foresee seeing lawsuits filed against internet users who view copyrighted content using a YouTube-like streaming service.

This is not to suggest or encourage that someone use this medium of viewing copyrighted films as technology can change, laws can change, and as the courts loosen their long-arm jurisdiction against foreign corporations and entities (weakening the Asahi case), the United States might start asserting its jurisdictions over foreign countries or foreign entities or corporations, and they might start forcing an internet fingerprint ID on the citizenry to track each citizen’s internet usage.  The takeaway, however, is that it is a lot harder to sue someone for viewing streamed content rather than suing someone for downloading content via bittorrent.

NOTE: An obvious exception to this article are those who have created accounts using their real identity or contact information, either 1) to participate or comment on forums or in the comment sections of the websites, or 2) those who pay a monthly or annual membership to access the premium content (e.g., faster speeds, unlimited content, etc.).  If you have an account on a website which streams content, then YES, your identity is at risk, and your viewing habits could be exposed for the world to see.  Otherwise, likely not.


Filed under: Streamed Content Tagged: copyright infringement, Streamed content, YouTube Websites

via WordPress http://ift.tt/1l4cOnt

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Florida Judge dismisses a Malibu case because Lipscomb failed to establish a connection between an IP address and person



houstonlawy3r:




Well written article, and good references. I have nothing to add because the article speaks for itself. The comments are just as interesting, especially mentioning Lipscomb’s Hawk Technology Systems, LLC *patent* infringement case. Yes, patent infringement (right down my alley).






Originally posted on Fight Copyright Trolls:















Even if this IPaddress is located within a residence, the geolocation software cannot identify who has access to that residence’s computer and who would actually be using it to infringe Plaintiff’s copyright.



From Judge Ungaro’s Order


We saw it coming: in less than two months in the Southern District of Florida, a venue where copyright troll Keith Lipscomb’s command and control is located,





View original 534 more words






Filed under: Uncategorized



via WordPress http://ift.tt/1phZxrc

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Florida Judge dismisses a Malibu case because Lipscomb failed to establish a connection between an IP address and person



houstonlawy3r:




Well written article, and good references. I have nothing to add because the article speaks for itself. The comments are just as interesting, especially mentioning Lipscomb’s Hawk Technology Systems, LLC *patent* infringement case. Yes, patent infringement (right down my alley).






Originally posted on Fight Copyright Trolls:















Even if this IPaddress is located within a residence, the geolocation software cannot identify who has access to that residence’s computer and who would actually be using it to infringe Plaintiff’s copyright.



From Judge Ungaro’s Order


We saw it coming: in less than two months in the Southern District of Florida, a venue where copyright troll Keith Lipscomb’s command and control is located,





View original 534 more words






Filed under: Uncategorized



via WordPress http://ift.tt/1oIgW9Z