City Of London Police Turn Down Torrentfreak's FOIA Request Because It Would Take Too Long To Fulfill

from the too-hard,-won't-try dept

The City of London Police (notably, not the London Metropolitan Police and you will rue the day you ever make that mistake) have been both a law unto themselves and the UK's foremost copyright cops… which would make them a copyright law unto themselves… or something. Name another law enforcement agency that has single-handedly done more to pursue the Pirate Bays of the world. I follow this sort of stuff pretty closely and no one else even comes close. Here's a very brief rundown of the City of London's efforts in the service of King Copyright.

- Ordered registrars to shut down websites (without a court order) and threatened to strip registrars' accreditation if they didn't comply

- Created a secret "pirate site blacklist" for advertisers

- Inserted banner ads on "pirate" websites stating the sites had been forwarded to the police for "review," all without any legal basis to do so

- Arrested the creator of an anti-censorship proxy service, basically because Hollywood told it to

- Claimed Tor is "90% of the internet" and a "risk to society." Also: "bitnet."

Torrentfreak (which follows this sort of stuff extremely closely) sent a FOIA request to the City of London police seeking correspondence with "representatives of the creative industry regarding the pirate bay also known as TPB, thepiratebay.se, thepiratebay.sx, thepiratebay.org, or Pirate Bay."

Forget all the nice things I said about the UK's more relaxed attitude towards Freedom of Information requests. (Well, not all of them. This is a police force that serves the copyright industry, not the UK government itself.) The response to Torrentfreak basically says that it would require making an expenditure of time and as such, falls outside the expense guidelines for FOIA responses.

“In order to establish the existence of any correspondence of this kind it would be necessary to examine all mail systems, all call logs and all files/documents held by the force,” the reply read.

“The cost of completing this work would exceed the limit prescribed by the Secretary of State in accordance with powers contained in Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act. The limit is currently set at £450 and the hourly rate is set at £25.”

If so, then any request that might require 18 hours of work will automatically be tossed out. On one hand, this almost seems like an admission that the City of London Police communicate frequently with representatives of creative industries. On the other, it seems like an easy way to blow off a request for information it's in no hurry to release.

This sends Torrentfreak back to the drawing board and raises serious questions about the City of London's computer system. (Then again, the assertions about "bitnet" and "the internet is 90% Tor" raise a few technology-related questions of their own…) Any correspondence system utilized by governments should be searchable, including anything archived. It's not as though this sort of technology is obscure and limited to entities with unlimited budgets. It's fairly basic stuff. But the City of London police maintains it's a job that would exceed the time budget and, therefore, Torrentfreak gets nothing.

Torrentfreak will be revising its requests in hopes of finding something that's not too time-consuming for the City of London police to tackle. If and when these are released, I'm sure they'll make for entertaining and enlightening reading, provided they aren't redacted into complete uselessness.

Filed Under: city of london police, foia, uk
Companies: the pirate bay, torrentfreak

Once Again, Attempts To Block Access To The Pirate Bay Only Increase Traffic

from the definition-of-insanity dept

I first became aware of The Pirate Bay in 2006 when the site was raided by Swedish law enforcement and taken offline for a few days. Of course, the site came back online soon after, and all of the attention from taking it down resulted in a massive increase in awareness and traffic. Over the years, we've noticed a rather obvious pattern here. Every single time we hear about an attack on The Pirate Bay, it seems to get more traffic. In fact, TorrentFreak is reporting that despite all of the various countries that have officially ordered ISPs to block access to the site, traffic to The Pirate Bay has doubled since 2011. In fact, the traffic growth appears to be fairly steady: The really incredible thing is that, eight years after the initial raid, despite multiple lawsuits (even people in jail) and a variety of ISP blockades, it appears that the entertainment industry still hasn't learned a damn thing about understanding why people like The Pirate Bay and why its efforts to take it down keep failing. The industry's infatuation turned what had been a little-known Swedish torrent tracking site into a global phenomenon that makes them look worse and worse every time they fail to recognize what's happening.

Filed Under: blockades, copyright, isps
Companies: the pirate bay

Criminal Conviction In South Africa For Posting A Movie To The Pirate Bay

from the disproportionate dept

A few years ago, we wrote about an insanely aggressive anti-piracy campaign in South Africa, in which the local version of the RIAA (RISA) suggested people "shoot the pirate." That hyperbolic and ultra-aggressive campaign resulted in some actual violence, when RISA sent a group of artists (armed with that slogan) onto the streets to "confront" counterfeit CD sellers. So, perhaps it shouldn't come as a huge surprise to find out that a man in South Africa has been criminally convicted for posting a torrent for a local movie to the Pirate Bay, and given a suspended prison sentence.

There's a reason why most copyright infringement should be handled under civil litigation, rather than criminal. But, apparently authorities down in South Africa are trying a more aggressive path. While the guy had his sentence suspended because he apologized and helped to remove the work from being accessed via the Pirate Bay, it's hard to see how this is even close to a proportionate or reasonable response to someone sharing your movie. Meanwhile, it seems worth noting that up in Nigeria, a massively successful film industry has been built over the past few decades, in part because piracy helped solve the distribution problems the industry faced. Perhaps South Africa might want to think again before throwing fans behind bars for sharing a local film they liked.

Filed Under: copyright, criminal copyright, file sharing, south africa
Companies: the pirate bay

Dutch Court Says Pirate Bay Block Is Disproportionate, Ineffective And Harming Entrepreneurial Freedom

from the down-but-not-out dept

Two years ago, Techdirt reported on a couple of leading Dutch ISPs being ordered to block The Pirate Bay. To their huge credit, they did not take this lying down: they have been fighting it in the courts since, and have just won a major victory against the Dutch "anti-piracy" group BREIN. TorrentFreak has the details:

In its ruling the Court states that the Pirate Bay blockade is disproportionate and ineffective, citing TNO research and the Baywatch report of the University of Amsterdam. As a result, the blockade was found to hinder the Internet providers' entrepreneurial freedoms.

The court based its decision on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which both includes "freedom to conduct a business" and "right to property." In this case the entrepreneurial freedom outweighs property rights, because the blockades are disproportionate and ineffective.

Based on the above, the appeal court overturned the blocking order and ordered the Hollywood-funded anti-piracy group to pay 326,000 euros ($445,000) in legal fees.

That's a great result for a number of reasons. First, because it overturns the block on The Pirate Bay for the two Dutch ISPs concerned (and probably for other ISPs too.) Secondly, because it forces BREIN to pay the significant costs for its long-running attempt to tell ISPs how they should run their businesses. And thirdly, and perhaps mostly importantly, because it creates a precedent that underlines not only the pointlessness of trying to enforce an ineffectual blockade, but also the fact that entrepreneurial freedom outweighs copyright in this situation. Although that ruling only applies in the Netherlands, other courts in Europe may well take it into consideration when they are called upon to make similar rulings.

However, there is the possibility that BREIN will appeal, as Computerworld UK reports:

The case can be appealed to the Supreme Court, said a spokesman for the Court of Appeals. But while the Supreme Court is able to overrule the verdicts of lower courts, it only examines whether a lower court observed proper application of the law in reaching its decision. At this stage of the legal process, the facts of the case as established by the lower court are no longer the subject of the court's scrutiny.

It is too early to say if the case would be appealed, said Brein attorney Joris van Manen, adding that it is certainly worth considering.

So it would seem that BREIN may be down in this case, but it is not yet out.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: blocks, internet freedom, netherlands
Companies: brein, the pirate bay

Researchers Launch The Survey Bay; Largest Database Of Information On Users Of The Pirate Bay

from the have-a-sift dept

A few years back, The Pirate Bay agreed to team up with the Cybernorms Group at Sweden's Lund University to do some detailed research on who uses The Pirate Bay, and look at the "habits and norms within the file-sharing community." Over the past few years, a few interesting pieces of research have come out of that collaboration. The research is based on data from 75,000 users of The Pirate Bay who were surveyed. The team behind this project have now launched The Survey Bay, an interactive website that provides access to this database of data and information.

It's fascinating to look at, and gives you an interesting way to explore what different people who use The Pirate Bay think about various topics. Some people talk about accessing content that isn't available anywhere else. Others discuss the importance of internet freedoms. Certainly some discuss how they use it to get free content, but many of the discussions are a lot more thoughtful and nuanced than that. Obviously, there are limits to the results of a survey. The data clearly has some level of bias to it, and no one is claiming that it's a comprehensive look at file sharers -- but it is a way to look at what many users of The Pirate Bay are thinking, and recognizing that the arguments are a hell of a lot more nuanced and thoughtful than "yay, free stuff," as the MPAA/RIAA's of the world insist is the driving force behind those sites. I'm looking forward to more interesting analysis being done on this information.

Filed Under: cybernorms, data, file sharing, lund university, research
Companies: the pirate bay

Swedish Prosecutor Claims Registrar Of .se Domains An 'Accomplice' In Infringement Because Of Pirate Bay Domain

from the how-many-degrees-of-separation? dept

The concepts of secondary liability seem to go right out the window (along with basic rationality) when it comes to certain people freaking out about copyright infringement. The latest is that Swedish prosecutors are apparently threatening the registrar that manages the .se domain with some form of charges because the Pirate Bay (briefly) ran on an .se domain.

“The legal system has not been able to shut down the service after the previous guilty verdict against TPB,” IIS Chief of Communications Maria Ekelund told TorrentFreak.

“Therefore the prosecutor has opened a new case against both the domain holders and .SE. The prosecutor is accusing .SE of assisting TPB who are assisting others to commit copyright infringement.”

[....] “In the eyes of the prosecutor, .SE’s catalogue function has become some form of accomplice to criminal activity, a perspective that is unique in Europe as far as I know,” says IIS CEO Danny Aerts.

That seems fairly ridiculous when you begin to think about the implications of it. This is so far removed from any actual infringement, it's incredible. This is the scorched earth approach to dealing with copyright infringement, with no care at all for any possible collateral damage in holding totally unrelated parties, who happened to be used by a service provider who, in turn, happened to be used by some people to possibly infringe, as liable for that infringement.

Filed Under: .se, copyright, domain registrar, hosting, secondary liability, sweden
Companies: iis, the pirate bay

Interesting Move: Peter Sunde, Of The Pirate Bay & Flattr To Run For EU Parliament

from the raising-visibility dept

The Pirate Party of Sweden famously got two MEPs elected to the European Parliament in its last election, and now in an interesting move, Peter Sunde -- probably best known as the former spokesperson for The Pirate Bay -- has announced that he'll be running for the European Parliament in Finland (he was apparently born in Sweden but his ancestry is Finnish). After the Pirate Bay -- which many people incorrectly assume is connected to The Pirate Party -- Sunde went on to found Flattr, a system (which we use here) that helps content creators make money.

I've discovered that people who have never met Peter tend to be very quick to jump to conclusions about him -- almost always entirely incorrect. Amusingly, when I first met him, a few years back in Berlin, he and I were sitting in "the green room" of a conference right before a panel that he was supposed to be on. All of the other panelists on his panel had entered the room and were discussing the panel across the room, without knowing that Peter was sitting right there talking to me. So they started talking about him, and someone explained that "the pirates now hate Peter, because he switched to the other side with Flattr." Of course, nothing is further from the truth. This was never about "sides" but about reality. Peter has always been incredibly focused on recognizing what reality is and trying to respond to reality -- rather than making up artificial boundaries and pretending a fake world must exist where it does not. I'm not sure how well that will play in actual political situations, but it would be great to see what would happen.

The one bit that surprises me, frankly, about the decision to do this via the Pirate Party is that, in the past, Peter has actually distanced himself from The Pirate Party in the past, saying that he preferred other parties, such as the Swedish Green Party. Either way, in my limited experience with him, Peter has always been one of the most perceptive and thoughtful commenters on the state of technology and its impact on society and culture. I've come away from our conversations feeling like I understood a lot more about the world than when the talks started. I recognize that for many who come with pre-conceived notions, it will be easy to try to dismiss him, but for those willing to take a chance and see what he actually has to say, there is tremendous value in hearing what he has to say -- and in a political world, it would be great to see what he could accomplish.

That said, there is the outstanding matter of the ruling against him -- and the fact that he's been sentenced to jail, though it's still never been made clear when or how he will be expected to serve that sentence. I would imagine that somehow, that issue would need to be clarified if his candidacy actually gets any real momentum.

Filed Under: eu parliament, finland, peter sunde, pirate party
Companies: flatter, the pirate bay

Rejection Of The Pirate Bay Founders' Appeal Sets Dangerous Precedent On Liability & Free Expression

from the not-a-good-ruling-at-all dept

As others have noted, the European Court of Human Rights has rejected appeals from two founders of The Pirate Bay, Peter Sunde and Fredrik Neij, of their conviction under Swedish law. The decision is worth reading in its entirety, in that it tries to lay out a "balanced" approach concerning freedom of expression against other rights, such as copyright, and appears to come down on the side of saying copyright is more important than freedom of expression. That seems like a dangerous outcome in a variety of ways.

The court quite readily admits that forcing Sunde and Neij to block content from being exchanged via TPB violates their free expression rights, but says that this is a legitimate restriction on such rights:

In the present case, the applicants put in place the means for others to impart and receive information within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention. The Court considers that the actions taken by the applicants are afforded protection under Article 10 § 1 of the Convention and, consequently, the applicants' convictions interfered with their right to freedom of expression. Such interference breaches Article 10 unless it was "prescribed by law", pursued one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in Article 10 § 2 and was "necessary in a democratic society" to attain such aim or aims.

They then look at whether or not the restriction of free expression was "prescribed by law" and conclude that it was, because it happened under the Copyright Act, and there was a "legitimate aim" behind the convictions. That's pretty broad, of course. It also looks at whether or not this restriction was "necessary in a democratic society," which is where it spends the most of its time.

The court seems heavily influenced by the fact that TPB did not remove torrents when asked to do so, despite no law requiring such actions. Furthermore, that sets a bizarre and dangerous precedent that just because someone "urges" you to remove content from an internet website or service, that you must do so or be held liable for it.

The part that troubles me most, however, is that the court more or less completely sidesteps the questions of secondary liability. While it mentions, a few times, that both Sunde and Neij have pointed out that TPB was just the service provider, and any actual infringement was done by users, it never properly addresses this issue, other than to suggest that secondary liability is perfectly reasonable. For those of us who have studied just how important protections for secondary liability are in promoting innovation, this suggests a very dangerous precedent for innovation in Europe. When service providers -- or even those who just worked on the platform -- are held directly liable for actions of their users, you create a very big chilling effect on other companies and services. While it may be more understandable for Neij, who worked directly on building and maintaining the site, Sunde's connection to the actual operations has always been remote. The EHCR reiterates the silly point that, among other things, Sunde "configured a load balancing service for TPB" as if that has anything to do with the overall operations of the site. While it does also talk about his minimal work in working with advertisers on the site, setting up a load balancer and advertising relationships are perfectly legitimate activities, and have nothing to do with any infringement that may have occurred on the site.

Having recently watched the documentary on the TPB trial, TPB AFK (and recognizing that it likely does not tell the full story in the short time frame allowed in a documentary flick), you begin to recognize that there is something of a language and technology literacy gap between those prosecuting the TPB founders and the founders themselves, and, if anything, I think that contributes to the situation the founders are in now. Many of their explanations make perfect sense from a technology standpoint, and are completely obvious, normal things that any online service would do. But, the founders seem to think that these things are so obvious and so non-troublesome that they don't appear to do a very good job of explaining them in ways that the court would understand. It's for that reason that I think the case has not gone that well for the founders. It often appears that they assume that those who are judging them (and prosecuting them) have a level of technological literacy and sophistication that they do not have. There would be ways to dumb down the arguments for why they should be protected under secondary liability theories, but it almost appears that the founders believe that it is the responsibility of those in the court to understand the more sophisticated arguments. I can certainly understand where such a position comes from -- and it makes sense in an ideal world. But in the real world, where that sophistication is lacking, the TPB founders glib explanations for the actions taken come off as semantics and rationalizations, rather than a compelling judicial argument. That is unfortunate, because the end result is a decision like the one today.

Filed Under: copyright, ehcr, eu court of human rights, europe, frederik neij, free expression, peter sunde, secondary liability
Companies: the pirate bay

Google Downranks The Pirate Bay In The UK, Because Surely, That Will Make People Buy Again

from the riaa-logic dept

We just recently wrote about the RIAA bitching about how Google wasn't living up to its promise to "downrank" so-called "pirate" sites. The issue was that the RIAA could still find sites that it didn't like ranked relatively highly in the index. Well, the folks at TorrentFreak have noticed that, at least in the UK, if you do a search for "pirate bay," you no longer get the actual TPB website as one of the top 100 results. Of course, you do get a variety of proxies, instead, and perhaps that makes sense, given the decision last year by a court that ISPs must block access to TPB. Perhaps Google is just reflecting, accurately, that clicking directly to TPB will fail.

Either way, it makes you realize how incredibly pointless all of this is. If someone is doing a search explicitly for "pirate bay," not finding the actual site as a top result isn't suddenly going to make someone rush to their nearest RIAA-approved record store to purchase something. Google's job is to help people find what they're looking for -- not to tell them "this isn't the site you're looking for" when it clearly is.

Filed Under: rankings, search, the pirate bay, uk
Companies: google, the pirate bay

UK Lets The Recording Industry Decide What Websites To Censor

from the incredible dept

Having already kicked down the internet censorship door by ordering that ISPs block access to The Pirate Bay, the UK's High Court has expanded the list of sites to block based on complaints from BPI about which sites it believes are responsible for piracy. And, so, just like that, those in the UK will find Kickass Torrents, H33T and Fenopy blocked. I don't know anything about these three sites. So, for all I know, they could be horrible, horrible actors in all of this, but even so, having a court order them completely blocked from access based on statements from BPI -- a commercial party who clearly would have a bias against upstart, disruptive competitors -- seems crazy. Again, take a look at the history of the entertainment industry attacking every single new type of distribution technology. And now the UK High Court is allowing them to do this to the level of flat out censoring sites.

Filed Under: blocks, censorship, copyright, high court, isps, takedowns, uk
Companies: bpi, fenopy, h33t, kickass torrents, the pirate bay