Are Copyright Holders Seeding Own Files To Find, Sue Downloaders?
from the a-bit-of-a-twist dept
Last year, we talked about some language in a contract being used by a company that was supposedly trying to help copyright holders track down content being shared online, for the purpose of sending out threatening "pre-settlement" letters. The contract appeared to indicate that the copyright holders were giving the tracking company permission to put their works on file sharing programs, for the sake of "catching" people downloading the content:To achieve the purpose outlined in clause 1, LICENSOR grants DIGIPROTECT the exclusive right to make the movies listed in Appendix 1 worldwide available to the public via remote computer networks, so-called peer-2-peer and internet file sharing networks such as e-Donkey, Kazaa, Bitorrent, etc. for the duration of this agreementThis seemed highly questionable. Considering that this was in association with a law firm that had been known to send out a large number of these pre-settlement demand letters, but never filed a lawsuit, one could make an argument that the companies had worked out quite a system: purposely put your own content online, watch who downloads it, then send threatening letter demanding payment. Of course, there were denials all around, and people insisted that this sort of language was really only necessary so the tracking company could download the content themselves.
And yet... Michael Scott points us to a lawsuit in Germany that indicates someone may be using this very trick. It's unclear from the writeup if this is the same company (probably not), but a guy who's been accused not just of copyright infringement, but a criminal charge of distributing pornography, is claiming this is what happened to him. His explanation is rather compelling. He claims that he was using a modded version of file sharing software that did not allow upload capability. In doing so, it means that he never distributed anything (which might make the "distribution" charge pretty hard to prove). But, of course, if he never shared anything, then how would his IP address get flagged? The only real option is that whoever he downloaded it from provided the IP address back to the copyright holder -- or was the copyright holder itself.
Of course... if that's the case, one could make a pretty strong argument that the content itself was also authorized, since it was put up on the file sharing network by the copyright holder. And, on top of all this, the guy claims that the files he downloaded had misleading titles, and he didn't intend to download pornography. Whether or not you believe any of that (or his intentions), it certainly suggests that at least some content owners may be putting their own content up in order to catch downloaders and hit them with lawsuits or settlement letters. It's difficult to see how that's legal.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
entrapment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: entrapment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: entrapment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: entrapment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: entrapment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is like with youtube, post up something from a TV show and it can be taken down, but if the company does it itself it is fully authorized....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But I thought double_fishhook_rearslam.avi, backside_plow.avi, and reverse_cowgirl.avi were simply outdoorsman instructional videos...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On a serious note, it is scary to consider the idea that a content owner might deliberately hide pornography labeled as something else, just to get the downloader prosecuted criminally. I've decided there is no value in downloading movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Something is wrong. Terribly worng.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I could've sworn I remember hearing about these sort of techniques in the old Napster, Kazaa, pre-torrent p2p days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How does this work?
If the distribution aspect of the copyright law is what these people are supposedly breaching, then it makes no difference whether or not the content was authorized, because at the end of the day, copyright owners are allowed to distribute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just because the file is online doesn't give you express permission to download it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
....uh, yeah, a HUGE difference. One involves the police/authorities. One does not.
"Or any different from the postal authorities order "obscene" material from another state, just to create a case of interstate transport of obscenity?"
See? That time you even SAID authority...
"Just because the file is online doesn't give you express permission to download it."
Which isn't the problem. The problem is that you have a profit-seeking private firm trying to fish for litigants, THEN contacting the authorities. How do you not see the problem with that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's like saying no one is allowed to record a TV Show then hunt down people that recorded the TV show after showing it on TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Er, if the actual company (or their appointed representative) is putting the file online, it's a reasonable assumption.
Otherwise, I could sue you AND have you criminally prosecuted if, say, you watched one of my youtube videos (since your computer downloads it to enable you to view it.) Hey, I didn't give you express permission, did I?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry, but wrong. If it's online and pubically accessible, you certainly have a right to download it. How else could a remote machine view the file except via downloading?
What you don't have the right to do legally is to upload that file to some other remote location. That's the issue. To think of it as a book or a movie under copyright. You're allowed to make a copy into your brian of the copyrighted material, but you're not allowed to export that copy for someone else to share.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now, once they knowingly upload the .torrent file or update the tracker then I would qualify it as an open invitation to download. Since these people are using how P2P works to track down users then they must know how P2P works. They must know that a tracker needs updated. They must know that they are openly sharing files.
So I submit that making available is not an open invitation but intentionally putting it out there where every one can see is an open invitation.
It's like leaving your front door open is not an open invitation to take the sound system but putting it out by the curb is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confused
And are they using the very definition of P2P file sharing to get people in trouble? It sounds like they're putting their own content online, which is fine (they own it; it's their right), and user 1 downloads it (again, fine), but then user 2 goes to download it, and because of the way P2P works, user 2 gets the file from user 1 (or bits from user 1 and bits from the company), and the company slams user 1 for "unauthorized distribution"? The only defense is to have a modified P2P client that doesn't behave in the traditional P2P manner, downloading only and not redistributing like a good P2P client should?
Did I follow that right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"and he didn't intend to download pornography"
Well that casts some doubt on his whole story but I hope he's telling the truth. I've been arguing to people for a long time now that you can't get in trouble for downloading content given the way P2P works. If you download from a pirate there's no real way for the copyright holders to know unless they are intercepting packets (or your ISP is). If you download from the copyright holder then it's a legitimate distribution. You don't have the right to re-distribute the work but that's a different issue if you are ONLY downloading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wrong. If you give someone a free DVD, it's end of discussion. But nobody is GIVING anyone anything. They have to come in and take it. It's a very big difference.
I am suspecting that the entire model is to track down file sharers further down the line, not the immediate downloaders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There's no legitimate reason to have software up on P2P unless you are intending for people to consume it. Expecting people to know that you've put something up on P2P but that they don't have the right to consume it is ludicrous. How could any user reasonably distinguish between the two cases?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"By putting something on line you grant all other users of the network the right to share it freely and furthermore you assert that you have the right to do so" then this tactic is dead in the water isn't it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the rights holder puts it/agrees to put it online
Implicit agreement to allow file sharers to distribute the content, imo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
been done since the start
Remember those companies that just renamed themselves, aka mediasentry? How do you suppose mediasentry monitored the torrent without getting sued for infringement?
duh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually
As for all that p2p stuff. I haven't used much of it in a while. yahoo, msn, skype, etc all work pretty well for many things if you just know people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How much do you have to download to be guilty?
For this to stand up in court, I would think you'd need to run the tracker itself (not just seed a file) and modify the code so that peers aren't aware of each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I were to be used for sharing files ...
1) I downloaded it from the P2P where it was freely shared by who I thought was the copyright owner or authorized distributor
2) Because of how P2P works I understood that I should also share the material to further the wishes of the copyright owner to reduce the bandwidth required by the owner
3) At any point if I had been made aware the the content was in fact not authorized I would had not shared and not downloaded
Ignorance of the law is not a defense, but ignorance of the facts is. Unless I am explicitly told otherwise I have no way of knowing that the content is not authorized unless I was the person to initially upload it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If I were to be used for sharing files ...
"•If I were to be used for sharing files ..."
For those of you unaware, Typo of the Week awards are given to anyone who accidentally is MORE correct due to a typo than they would have been otherwise.
So congrats, TheStupidOne, you're our winner. You will receive no points, and may God have mercy on your soul...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If I were to be used for sharing files ...
Sorry, but that is "fail". Effectively, the question is this: "Based on the copyright of the item, do I have the rights?" The answer is no. If you don't have the rights, it doesn't matter if you got it from P2P or bought it at a flea market, you still don't have the rights.
P2P transfers don't suddenly magically allow you to ignore copyright law, as much as the people here would like you to think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If I were to be used for sharing files ...
Actually, the answer is 'maybe.' But thanks for playing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If I were to be used for sharing files ...
1) Did you believe that you were authorized to download/share the material.
2) Was that belief reasonable given the circumstances.
So if you went to a site with the URL "www.warnermusic.com" and found a page that said "free downloads" then you would not be liable even if it turned out that the site was spoofed and no legal authorization existed.
Likewise if an official distributor mistakenly (or even wilfully) distributes something he has no rights to that does not create a liability for the customers.
Similarly if you download something from Utube - or any other site where a takedown system operates - it is a reasonable assumption that anything that is available is OK to view/download - even if it isn't and subsequently gets taken down.
However if you just find it on a p2p torrent site then unless you are able to produce evidence to support your belief that the policy of the monopoly concessionee is to distribute freely you could be liable for infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If I were to be used for sharing files ...
How much does a name change cost again? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They offered freely, you take it freely and even, quite nicely, help them out with their distribution bandwidth too.
they just shot yet another foot if they think this will stand up in any court anywhere. (BTW, aren't they out of feet yet?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Permission to redistribute.
It's reasonable to assume that they wanted you to redistribute that file ...
It is well defined how P2P works ...
If you make your material available for download there then you intend for everyone on that network to redistribute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Usually distribution requires a license. Given the nature of P2P, there is NO WAY to know who you are downloading this work from. If there are restrictions on distribution (which is a given if it's a copyrighted work) or you have express legal permission to distribute it, then you have to assume you do NOT have a right to redistribute it, regardless of who is doing the supplying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Holder Shady Practices
[ link to this | view in chronology ]