Time Warner Cable Stands Up To Automated Copyright Infringement Filing Factory
from the well,-there's-one... dept
We've been covering the new US operation, US Copyright Group. You may recall, it burst on the scene in late March with a claim of having filed 20,000 infringement lawsuits -- many of which were over a Uwe Boll movie, Far Cry, despite much of the infringement allegedly occurring before the film was registered at the US copyright office (a no-no for filing a lawsuit). More recently, the company was apparently gearing up to do the same thing over the Oscar-winning movie Hurt Locker.During that time, we noted that US Copyright Group claimed that it had gone from having one ISP cooperating to "75%" of ISPs cooperating. This was a surprise, because years back, ISPs had been reluctant to cooperate with similar efforts. So the numbers seemed questionable. Either way, apparently Time Warner Cable is not at all interested in working with US Copyright Group. Instead, TWC went to the court to protest US Copyright Group's efforts:
"Copyright cases involving third-party discovery of Internet service providers have typically related to a plaintiff's efforts to identify anonymous defendants whose numbers rank in the single or low double digits," wrote the cable company. "By contrast, plaintiff in this case alone seeks identifying information about 2,049 anonymous defendants, and seeks identifying information about 809 Internet Protocol addresses from TWC...."Pretty interesting, given Time Warner Cable's connection to Time Warner, which you would think would make it a bit more open to working with US Copyright Group. The article at Ars Technica also notes that Comcast and Cablevision also aren't thrilled about US Copyright Group's subpoenas. That's three of the largest ISPs out there, so I'm curious about the 75% of ISPs who are supposedly "fully cooperating." It sounds like that claim is about as legitimate as many of the original filings over infringement on a work who was not registered at the time of infringement.
"If the Court compels TWC to answer all of these lookup requests given its current staffing, it would take TWC nearly three months of full-time work by TWC's Subpoena Compliance group, and TWC would not be able to respond to any other request, emergency or otherwise, from law enforcement during this period," said the filing. "TWC has a six-month retention period for its IP lookup logs, and by the time TWC could turn to law enforcement requests, many of these requests could not be answered."
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
Filed Under: automated lawsuits, isps
Companies: time warner cable, us copyright group
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal Obligations?
>it is clear that widespread infringement is happening on
>their system, and they need to staff up to meet their legal
>obligations
I was wondering if, by the same logic, gun manufacturers had a legal obligation to "staff up" and somehow prevent the widespread (and very well documented) illegal uses their customers put the firearms to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How about making the rights holder PROVE that freakin' IP ADDRESS ACTUALLY IDENTIFIES A SPECIFIC PERSON?
If you want to get into the nuts and bolts of process and it's components foundations in reality, you should start with that assumption of guilt based on an unverifiable piece of "evidence."
Thanks for playing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Didn't read all the comments so I'll say again for this assbag.
IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. ALONE. Police your own shit. Also if I were TW i'd send the bill to USCG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They aren't useless. They are one piece of circumstantial evidence. A case that goes fully to trial will use that, plus others in an attempt to build a convincing argument in the absence of eyewitness evidence or an admission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They aren't useless. They are one piece of circumstantial evidence. A case that goes fully to trial will use that, plus others in an attempt to build a convincing argument in the absence of eyewitness evidence or an admission.
BUT these cases will never go to trial. If it is a significant burden on Time Warner to simply identify the user accounts from the IP addresses then actually taking each case to trial would clog up the entire court system until the copyrights have all expired. (i.e. forever minus 1 day).
This is not about due process, this is a scam to extract money by threats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We have been saying the same thing about Big Media for years....
The cat is out of the bag, it's not going back in no matter what you do. You want to piss off your customers by locking down the ps3's, blocking their tivo's, infecting their computers with root kits, shutting down DRM servers,.. etc.. etc...? You (big media) have made an enemy out of your customer, you get what you deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you read the information provided by groups like US copyright Group and ACS Law in the UK you will find that they admit quite blatantly that this particular scheme IS all about money.
As for changing people's opinions about filesharing, the net effect of these tactics seems to be to drive opinion in the opposite direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If we bog down TWC and the courts enough with these cases, it would be evident what a fruitless effort this is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Think of it from time warners perspective ...
We do this we are opening a can of worms. This month we need to quadruple our staff. Next month when someone comes along with 200,000 requests because they built a better infringment tracker we will need to have 400 full time staffers and pay for healthcare and office space. At $45 USD per request it is not cost effective and eats into our profits.
Then you also have ...
the liability issue.
the enevitable lawsuits.
the inevitable class action lawsuit.
the public opinion issue.
the fact that the FCC is going for net neutrality.
the fact that >40% of the US population has infringed in the past year. (ie the loss of customers)
the 10-15% failure rate for the correct IP address. (its actually listed as 4-7%, but with the high rate of infringement you luck out quite often)
the ever expanding google broadband issue. (communities wanting to follow googles lead, and the best practices and network designs being released during the build)
All in all its a non starter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They can't? Wasn't the bulk of their litigation industry based on the premise that IP addresses are godly when it comes to identifying people? Or have they come to realise that companies such as BayTSP have been pulling fast ones?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you a lawyer or is this an opinion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No.
IP addresses are one primary piece of evidence they used to start to locate an individual person, but they also used hard disk forensics, sworn testimony, etc. That was the whole issue in, e.g., UMG v. Lindor. In that case, they most certainly had an IP address, a username (jrlindor), some protocol details that indicated that the computer in use was not behind a broadband router, and so on. Depositions went poorly (IMHO because of both sides) and it was never firmly established whose computer was used or who was using that computer and the case was dropped.
A similar issue came up in Capitol v. Thomas, where Thomas (later Thomas-Rasset) denied she was the individual sharing music, but the jury did not believe her. (Yes, the evidence was circumstantial, but the jury found it convincing). A second jury came to the same conclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The accuser offers to settle.
If the accused accepts the offer, then the matter is settled and that's the end of it.
If not, then the accuser can press forward with a lawsuit. At this point, there are depositions taken and they will ask about NAT routers and such under oath.
They will also see if there is any evidence from the Internet traces as to whether there is a NAT router in place (in the cases involving Kazaa, there was an assertion that the Kazaa protocol had a particular quirk that reported both the endpoint address as well as the local IP address of the computer running Kazaa. If these were identical, then that was evidence that no NAT box was in place. If the computer had an internal IP address (e.g., 192.168.x.x or something) and the endpoint had an address registered to the ISP, that was evidence that there was some kind of intermediate router/NAT box in place.
They will also subpoena forensically examine the hard drive for corroborating evidence.
A very small number of cases ever got to this stage that I know of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't know about that guy, but I have seen (and been intimately involved in) a real court in action in the U.S. I can tell you that, when both sides are doing their job, there is an immense amount of work, rigor, and preparation involved, far beyond what I see as most people's ordinary experience. The intensity and pressure is unlike anything I have ever experienced, and I think I'll avoid jumping back into the fray for the time being.
There is plenty of criticism to lob at the process, but almost assuredly the most emotional arguments you would make would impugn the adversarial system as a whole, and not just cases involving illicit file sharing.
In my experience, the key to fighting a legal battle is extensive preparation. That means intense investigation, summarization and presentation of arguments, considering every possible contingency and every contingency for a contingency.
When the hearing or the deposition or the trial comes, you must be ready right then and there. Do-overs, if they are even available to you in the form of appeals of various sorts, are extraordinarily expensive. I have seen good attorneys prepare 100 contingencies such that they may use one or two of them. It's very much like playing chess, looking multiple moves ahead, except considering each move doesn't take moments - it takes hours or days.
The better-prepared side of the case is going to be more able to deal with those contingencies when they arise. And preparation takes resources. The worst outcomes occur when one side is under-prepared, or (perhaps worse) when both sides are under-prepared. Inequity of preparation is something that is inherent in adversarial systems, and there are legal scholars and a body of research that you can debate about that issue all day long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sounds fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sounds fun.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
No, not really. As I understand it, you, as a third party, can file a lawsuit against a number of John Does, who you need additional discovery to identify specifically. Then, you can ask a judge to issue the ISP a subpoena. If the judge finds your arguments sufficiently compelling, he or she can issue that subpoena. The subpoena is a demand from the government to the ISP. So no, you as a third party cannot make a direct demand to an ISP (well, you can, but then compliance would be purely voluntary on the ISP's part).
As for "revealing personal information:" Although I am not sure how it works in these cases, I suppose that protecting the personal information through a protective order or seal of some sort would be the responsibility of the judge as part of managing the discovery process. Judges can get awfully touchy if you do anything with privileged or protected information that you're not supposed to do. If the judge says that you can only use certain personal information for certain purposes in the lawsuit, and the judge finds out you used it for something else or disclosed it improperly, very, very bad things can happen to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Logic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reasons
TWC is happy to use the right language in the court documents, but they don't come out and say that the whole infringment lawsuit is nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Indeed. But they come from the same basic DNA... in coming from the same place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's not how I read the article at all, Mike. They may be interested, but not to the tune of thousands of requests per month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The movie sucked
These guys are about as harmless as the Web Sheriff, I think they could be his posse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I really hope I get a letter because I still dont see how some dude sets up a website and thinks that magically gives him the right to extortion.
I saw you fill your water cup with soda, send me a dollar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Database indexing algorithms quite frankly suck for massive amounts of somewhat random data coming in at a high volume, the DB servers probably scream under the I/O load doing full table scans on the queries. I would not be amazed if a single query took eight hours. Staffing up doesn't help since the bottleneck is likely the DB queries themselves.
Not only is the data set not given to compact indexing, but likely the tables and indexes were poorly thought out at the time the DB was throw together. The creator of the DB probably did not take into account the shear volume of the copyright requests that are currently coming in for what was originally design for a handful of law enforcement requests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
captured
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
reply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]