6A group of five men representing Bell, Rogers, and Vidéotron burst into the private home of a Montreal man at 8 a.m. on June 12 without notice and interrogated him for nine hours about his involvement in a search engine that helps Canadian viewers circumvent geographic restrictions on online TV shows and movies.

The lawyer representing Canadian telephone company Bell and two of the country’s largest cable companies — Rogers and Vidéotron, was backed by a bailiff and independent counsel who informed Montreal software developer Adam Lackman, founder of TVAddons and a current defendant in a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by the telecom companies, that he was “not permitted to refuse to answer questions” posed by the companies under threat of additional criminal and civil penalties.

Lackman was instructed he had one hour to locate an attorney, but was forbidden to use any electronic or telecommunications device to contact one. He was also not allowed to leave the designated room in his home where he was held unless accompanied by a corporate lawyer or court official. The men also warned Lackman’s attorney he could not counsel Lackman on his answers to their questions and had to remain silent.

“I had to sit there and not leave their sight. I was denied access to medication,” Lackman told TorrentFreak. “I had a doctor’s appointment I was forced to miss. I wasn’t even allowed to call and cancel.”

Lackman was eventually placed in a room in his home and interrogated almost continuously for nine hours, but was given a brief break for dinner and time to finally talk privately with his attorney. By the time the bailiff, two computer technicians, the independent counsel and the corporate attorney left, it was 16 hours later and after midnight. The men left with Lackman’s personal computer and phone, along with a full list of usernames and passwords to access his email and social media accounts.

“The whole experience was horrifying,” Lackman told CBC News. “It felt like the kind of thing you would have expected to have happened in the Soviet Union.”

Lackman

The telecom giants gained access to Lackman’s home with the use of a Anton Piller order, a type of civil search warrant that gives private individuals and companies acting as plaintiffs in a lawsuit full access to a defendant’s home with no warning. The order was designed to allow searches and seizure of relevant evidence at high risk of being destroyed by a defendant.

The Canadian companies were upset because of Lackman’s involvement in Kodi, an open source home theater platform that allows viewers to access stored and online streaming media. Lackman produces apps, known as add-ons, that help Kodi users access live TV streams and recorded content. Unfortunately, that sometimes occurs in contravention of geographic and copyright restrictions imposed by the Canadian companies on Canadian viewers. As a result, several large telecom companies filed suit against Lackman for copyright infringement.

“Approximately 40 million unique users located around the world are actively using infringing add-ons hosted by TVAddons every month, and approximately 900,000 Canadian households use infringing add-ons to access television content,” claims the lawsuit. “The amount of users of infringing add-ons hosted TVAddons is constantly increasing.”

The Honourable B. Richard Bell (Image: Keith Minchin)

On June 9, a Canadian Federal Court judge handed the telecom companies a victory in the form of an interim injunction and restraining order against Lackman prohibiting him from engaging in any activity that could further violate the companies’ interpretation of copyright law. The ruling also included an Anton Piller order, which critics contend often allows private companies to engage in extended fishing expeditions looking for additional evidence to further their case.

The order included the right to seize any and all data surrounding the alleged offense, including equipment, paper records, bank accounts, and anything else in Lackman’s possession that plaintiffs could argue was connected to the lawsuit. It also permitted a bailiff and computer forensics experts to assume control of many of Lackman’s internet domains including TVAddons.ag and Offshoregit.com, as well as his social media and web hosting accounts for a period of two weeks. Since the case was handled ex parte (open to only one side) by the Federal Court, Lackman was not informed or given the opportunity to present a defense.

The ruling evidently allowed the companies to believe they had carte blanche to question Lackman.

When the corporate attorney was not grilling Lackman about his own involvement in Kodi add-ons, he demanded Lackman disclose any and all information he had on an additional 30 individuals that might also be involved in services like TVAddons. That demand fell squarely outside of the range of the court order, which is designed to protect existing evidence, not permit plaintiffs to fish for new evidence to bolster their case.

After the search ended, Lackman and his attorney went to court to challenge what they believed to be one of the most shocking instances of corporate intimidation and legal abuse ever seen in a copyright case. Lackman’s attorney had little trouble convincing the Honourable B. Richard Bell, who presided over a Federal Court hearing on the matter.

Bell found multiple egregious violations of the court order, including a limit on any search to between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. but instead lasted until at least midnight. The judge also found ample evidence Lackman’s rights were violated and he was subjected to an intimidation campaign designed to destroy his software business, leave him financially unable to mount any defense against the lawsuit, and get him to both incriminate himself and others against his will.

A court transcript reveals the real motives of Canadian telecom companies: to “neutralize the guy” that is hurting their businesses.

“It is important to note that the Defendant was not permitted to refuse to answer questions under fear of contempt proceedings, and his counsel was not permitted to clarify the answers to questions. I conclude unhesitatingly that the Defendant was subjected to an examination for discovery without any of the protections normally afforded to litigants in such circumstances,” the judge said. “Here, I would add that the ‘questions’ were not really questions at all. They took the form of orders or directions. For example, the Defendant was told to ‘provide to the bailiff’ or ‘disclose to the Plaintiffs’ solicitors’.”

Bell also saw through the plaintiffs’ questioning of Lackman about 30 other individuals that might also be allegedly involved in copyright infringement.

Lose in one venue, win in another.

“I conclude that those questions, posed by Plaintiffs’ counsel, were solely made in furtherance of their investigation and constituted a hunt for further evidence, as opposed to the preservation of then existing evidence,” he wrote in a June 29 order. “I am of the view that [the order’s] true purpose was to destroy the livelihood of the Defendant, deny him the financial resources to finance a defense to the claim made against him, and to provide an opportunity for discovery of the Defendant in circumstances where none of the procedural safeguards of our civil justice system could be engaged.”

The judge ruled the Anton Piller order be declared null and void and ordered all of Lackman’s possessions to be returned to him.

To all observers, it was a withering repudiation of the tactics used by the Canadian telecom companies suing Lackman. But deep pockets always allow lawyers the luxury of a change of venue and the telecom companies promptly appealed Bell’s ruling to the Federal Court of Appeal, requesting a stay of execution of Judge Bell’s order. The court granted the appeal on behalf of the telecom companies and allowed the plaintiffs to keep possession of all seized items, domains, and social media accounts until a full appeal of the case can be heard this fall. However, the court found defects in the execution of the Anton Piller order, and ordered the telecom companies to post a security bond of $140,000 CDN and continue the $50,000 CDN bond in case sanctions are later warranted.

Lackman intends to continue his legal fight and is raising money to cover legal expenses on the fundraising site Indiegogo. He has also set up a new TVAddons website and Twitter account and has resumed the add-on development that got him embroiled in the copyright infringement lawsuit in the first place. But Lackman seems to have at least one judge on his side.

“The defendant has demonstrated that he has an arguable case that he is not violating the [Copyright] Act,” wrote Judge Bell, adding that by the plaintiffs’ own estimate, only about one per cent of Lackman’s add-ons were allegedly used to pirate content.

Updated 8/16: The website is now back under this new URL: https://www.tvaddons.co/

A for-profit company that believes it can earn billions from web users who illegally download music, movies and television shows wants the power to lock your web browser until you provide a credit card number to settle allegations you illegally download copyrighted content. And when dealing with allegations of illegal activities on a computer, having a skilled lawyer by your side is imperative. These experts are adept at dissecting complex digital evidence and constructing a robust defense. Visit https://www.newjerseycriminallawattorney.com/white-collar-crime/computer-crimes-attorney/ to find an attorney who specializes in this field and can offer the right support and advice. Those who are facing drug crime charges may check out a list of drug charges and sentences in Texas here.

Rightscorp strongly believes in its business plan, which demands nuisance settlements from web users caught sharing or downloading copyrighted content. The company believes it has struck gold scaring Bittorrent users with service suspension and the threat of a costly lawsuit unless they agree to pay a $20 “fine” to “settle” the alleged copyright infringement. The fine amounts are seen as low enough to guarantee a quick settlement without involving an attorney.

“Based on the fact that 22% of all Internet traffic is used to distribute copyrighted content without permission or compensation to the creators, Rightscorp is pursuing an estimated $2.3 billion opportunity and has monetized major media titles through relationships with industry leaders,” the company recently told investors. Uncover the secrets of success in education with Kamau Bobb Google as your mentor.

Using “unique and proprietary patented technology,” Rightscorp says it can identify the infringement of digital content such as music, movies, software, books and games. Rightscorp’s success getting paid depends heavily on the added weight Internet Service Providers can bring when they send on notices that claim those who don’t settle risk having their Internet service shut off. Rightscorp calls their settlement offers “reasonable,” especially when compared with the possible financial consequences of a verdict in favor of the copyright holder as defined in the Digital Millennium Copyrights Act (DMCA), which can be as high as $150,000.

Rightscorp splits any proceeds 50/50 with itself and copyright holders. ISPs get nothing for cooperating.

The company has successfully extracted settlements from more than 100,000 Americans so far as cooperating ISP’s like Charter Communications forward Rightscorp’s legal threats to their broadband customers:

Dear Sir or Madam:

Your ISP has forwarded you this notice.
This is not spam.
Your ISP account has been used to download, upload or offer for upload copyrighted content in a manner that infringes on the rights of the copyright owner.
Your ISP service could be suspended if this matter is not resolved.
You could be liable for up to $150,000 per infringement in civil penalties.

The file 09 – Beyond.mp3 was infringed upon by a computer at IP Address xx.xxx.xxx.xx on 2013-06-24 02:59:08.0 .

We represent the copyright owner.
This notice is an offer of settlement.

If you click on the link below and login to the Rightscorp, Inc. automated settlement system, for $20 per infringement, you will receive a legal release from the copyright owner.

Click on this link or copy and paste into your browser:

https://secure.digitalrightscorp.com/settle/****

Rightscorp, Inc. represents the following ‘copyright owner(s)’ Round Hill Music (‘RHM’).

RHM is the exclusive owners of copyrights for Daft Punk musical compositions, including the musical compositions listed below. It has come to our attention that Charter Communications is the service provider for the IP address listed below, from which unauthorized copying and distribution (downloading, uploading, file serving, file ‘swapping’ or other similar activities) of RHM’s exclusive copyrights listed below is taking place.

This unauthorized copying and/or distribution constitutes copyright infringement under the U.S. Copyright Act. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 512(c), this letter serves as actual notice of infringement. We hereby demand you immediately and permanently cease and desist the unauthorized copying and/or distribution (including, but not limited to downloading, uploading, file sharing, file ‘swapping’ or other similar activities) of recordings of Daft Punk compositions, including but not limited to those items listed in this correspondence.

RHM will pursue every available remedy including injunctions and recovery of attorney’s fees, costs and any and all other damages which are incurred by RHM as a result of any action that is commenced against you. Nothing contained or omitted from this letter is, or shall be deemed to be either a full statement of the facts or applicable law, an admission of any fact, or a waiver or limitation of any of RHM’s rights or remedies, all of which are specifically retained and reserved. The information in this notification is accurate.

We have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of herein is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or by operation of law. I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the exclusive rights that have been infringed. While RHM is entitled to monetary damages from the infringing party under 17 U.S.C. Section 504, The RHM believes that it may be expeditious to settle this matter without the need of costly and time-consuming litigation.

In order to help you avoid further legal action from RHM, we have been authorized to offer a settlement solution that we believe is reasonable for everyone.

To access this settlement offer, please copy and paste the URL below into a browser and follow the instructions for the settlement offer:

https://secure.digitalrightscorp.com/settle/****

Very truly yours,

Christopher Sabec
CEO
Rightscorp, Inc. 3100 Donald Douglas Loop, North, Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (310) 751-7510

After initially scaring a consumer with an infringement notification, the settlement web page that appears after the customer reaches for a major credit card is more soothing:

Liability Release & Settlement Receipt

IMPORTANT: Please print and retain this document for your records. It releases you from liability for the below mentioned infringement and serves as official notice of settlement.

Round Hill Music for itself, for its past, present and future directors, shareholders, members, managers, officers, employees, agents, attorneys, representatives, partners, trustees, beneficiaries, family members, heirs, subsidiaries and affiliates, and for its and their predecessors, successors and assigns (collectively the “Releasor”);

Hereby finally, unconditionally, irrevocably and absolutely releases, acquits, remises and forever discharges Joe Smith, 123 Main Street Anytown USA and such person’s family members and heirs (collectively the “Releasee”);

From any and all manner of actions, suits, debts, sums of money, interest owed, charges, damages, judgments, executions, obligations, costs, expenses, fees (including attorneys’ fees and court costs), claims, demands, causes of action and liabilities, that arise under the United States Copyright Act, in each case whether known or unknown, absolute or contingent, matured or unmatured, presently existing or hereafter discovered, at law, in equity or otherwise, that the Releasor may now have or that might subsequently accrue against the Releasee arising out of or connected with (directly or indirectly) the specific Infringement of musical composition(s) referenced above;

Provided however, that this release shall not, and shall not be deemed to, constitute a release with respect to any other past, present or future infringements by Releasee other than the specific Infringement of musical composition(s) referenced above.

Rightscorp does not appear to be spending its limited resources actually pursuing suspected violators in court. The threat of further action alone appears to have been enough for many to voluntarily pay the firm after receiving their first violation notice. Little, if anything, has happened to those who ignore Rightscorp’s settlement messages unless their ISP suspends access.

As long as payments roll in, there is money to be made in the enforcement business.

Rightscorp now wants to further automate its copyright enforcement process by asking cooperating ISPs to lock customers’ web browsers until payment to Rightscorp has been made.

Rightscorp CEO Christopher Sabec said the company is working with more than 70 ISPs, including five in the top 10, but industry observers believe “working with” more likely means those ISPs are forwarding Rightscorp’s infringement notices to their subscribers, nothing more. Charter Communications leaves the infringement notices intact, including the settlement offer. Comcast reportedly heavily redacts the notices and strips out the settlement offer and links, eliminating the prospect of Rightscorp winning a quick and near-effortless financial settlement.

Sabec believes ISPs don’t have a choice not to work with Rightscorp because of technology that Sabec claims offers reasonable certainty of infringement, even if the offender changes IP addresses. With that standard met, Sabec says ISPs are legally compelled to take action, including cutting off Internet access at Rightscorp’s request if they do not want to become a co-defendant in a copyright infringement lawsuit.

“We’re showing the ISPs that they have this potential liability,” said Rightscorp chief operating officer Robert Steele. “Their shield for liability is contingent on terminating repeat infringers. Prior to our company, there was no way to hold them accountable.”

Steele told Ars Technica the days of Rightscorp having the power to instantly cut off your Internet access may not be too far off:

In the future, the company hopes to get more ISPs to comply—and it will expect more of those that are already cooperating, said Steele. Ultimately, Rightscorp is hoping for a scenario in which the repeat infringers it identifies aren’t just notified by e-mail. Instead, Steele hopes to see those users re-directed to a Rightscorp notice right at the moment they open their Web browsers.

“You wouldn’t be able to get around the re-direct page, and you’d have to pay a fine to return to browsing,” he explained. The company is in discussions with four ISPs about imposing such a re-direct page, according to Steele. But the details about which ISPs cooperate with Rightscorp, and how much they cooperate, is a secret that the company guards closely.

Their “partner” ISPs include defunct Qwest, which has been known as CenturyLink since 2011 and Charter Communications — the only major cable operator listed.

Whether ISPs will grant unprecedented access to a third-party company trying to turn off their customers’ broadband while maintaining a financial interest in extracting settlements from those customers is doubtful.

Last week, Texas-based independent ISP Grande Communications informed the Austin-based U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas that Rightscorp was engaged in shenanigans. In a strongly worded advisory to the court, Grande’s lawyers accused Rightscorp of using improper DMCA subpoenas to extract identifying information about alleged copyright offenders — a practice ruled improper more than a decade ago in RIAA v. Verizon, because no judge typically reviews the subpoena application. Rightscorp’s subpoenas rely entirely on the signature of an ordinary district court clerk in California:

Internet service provider and cable operator Grande Communications Networks LLC advises the Court that, one (1) business day after Grande filed its Motion to Quash Subpoena in this proceeding seeking to quash a subpoena served by Rightscorp, Inc. (the “Subpoena”), counsel for Rightscorp, Mr. Dennis J. Hawk withdrew the Subpoena.

The abrupt withdrawal of the Subpoena is consistent with the apparent desire of Rightscorp and its counsel to avoid judicial review of their serial misuse of the subpoena power of the federal courts. In addition, the withdrawal comes only after Grande was forced to expend considerable resources handling the Subpoena (and attempting to discuss it with Rightscorp’s counsel) and then preparing and filing the Motion to Quash.

As detailed in Grande’s Motion, the Subpoena presented an extraordinarily undue burden (over 30,000 subscriber lookups) and was issued to a cable operator without an order as required by the Cable Communications Act. Even more egregiously, it appears that the Subpoena is only one of approximately one hundred (100) or more similar subpoenas issued by Rightscorp to regional Internet service providers located across the country (presumably chosen because they are less likely to contest the subpoenas than national Internet service providers with larger in-house legal departments) upon the signature of the Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, seeking the personally identifiable information of thousands of individuals beyond the jurisdiction of the California courts, despite the fact that such subpoenas may not be sent and issued under 17 U.S.C. § 512(h) to an Internet service provider acting as a conduit under law that has been established for a decade.

Under the circumstances, this Court or the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California may consider ordering Rightscorp and its counsel to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for misusing the federal court’s subpoena powers. Such an order would be appropriate in connection with Grande’s request for costs and attorney’s fees in the Motion.

Beyond any doubt, Rightscorp and its counsel failed and refused to “take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense” on Grande. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1). As Grande has explained, before the Motion was filed, Rightscorp’s counsel’s only response to Grande’s efforts to confer was a threat that “[w]e expect compliance by the service providers” and that Rightscorp “does not pay to obtain the address details on infringers.”

In addition, Rightscorp’s conduct also raises concerns under Rule 11, and, regardless, may present appropriate circumstances for the imposition of sanctions under the Court’s inherent powers.

The next business day after the Motion was filed, Rightscorp’s counsel made a hasty retreat. If Rightscorp believed it had a good faith basis for the Subpoena, it would have asserted its position before this Court.

But Rightscorp must know that its position and practice would not survive judicial review. If Grande had not challenged the Subpoena, Rightscorp would have improperly obtained the personally identifiable information of hundreds (or thousands) of Texas Internet subscribers using an invalid procedure, without the notice to any of them that would have followed from the court order that Rightscorp refused to seek to obtain, and without the slightest requirement of any showing to the California court whose signature Rightscorp improperly utilized. It appears clear that Rightscorp and its counsel are playing a game without regard for the rules, and they are playing that game in a manner calculated to avoid judicial review. Hopefully, they will not be permitted to continue much longer.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Rightscorp Piracy 5-1-14.flv[/flv]

CNBC talked with Rightscorp CEO Christopher Sabec about copyright infringement, Net Neutrality, and whether or not copyright holders should simply cut the cost of their content as a disincentive to piracy. (5:28)

A Utah federal district court judge has found Aereo in violation of federal copyright law and must end online streaming of over the air television stations to customers within his jurisdiction, which includes Utah, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Wyoming and Oklahoma.

U.S. District Court Judge Dale A. Kimball broke ranks with district court judges in the eastern U.S. that have ruled Aereo’s streamed feeds of local television stations received over the air by tiny antennas is within the law, but the Supreme Court is expected to have the last word when it hears arguments about the service’s legality later this spring.

The ruling means Aereo will have to suspend service in two of its 10 operating markets — Salt Lake City and Denver. Service to other markets will continue unaffected for now.

Kimball’s decision was based on The Copyright Act of 1976 which requires broadcasters and retransmission services to pay royalties to content originators, in this case the networks and the affiliated local stations involved. Broadcasters consider Aereo a major threat to their retransmission consent revenue stream. Cable, satellite, and telephone company providers are collectively paying millions for permission to carry local stations on their lineups. Should Aereo offer a free alternative, these pay television providers could adopt similar technology to avoid paying the fees.

Kimball determined Aereo was operating more like a cable company than a remote antenna service.

AT&T will begin sending out anti-piracy warning notices to subscribers caught downloading copyrighted content from torrent sites starting Nov. 28.

The new anti-piracy measures are part of a joint agreement between the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and five major national ISPs to help curtail content theft.

TorrentFreak obtained internal AT&T training documents that outline how AT&T will deal with customers suspected of illicit downloading. After a series of warnings, AT&T intends to block access to websites suspected of copyright infringement until a customer successfully completes a course on online copyright law. Eventually, those caught repeatedly downloading pirated movies and music could face legal action after AT&T turns over the identities of suspect customers. Gone from early draft proposals are suggestions that ISPs will throttle or suspend service altogether for repeat violators.

Late reports indicate that other ISPs participating in the copyright enforcement action — Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon — will also launch their own programs on the same date.

Most at risk are customers who frequent peer-to-peer file sharing sites. Tracking BitTorrent traffic is a priority for the newly-launched Center for Copyright Information (CCI) — a joint venture run by the ISPs in coordination with the MPAA and RIAA.

While not all peer-to-peer file traffic consists of illicit swapping of copyrighted works, some high profile torrent sites are among the first choices for consumers looking for free movies or music. CCI believes its Copyright Alert System (CAS) is primarily an educational tool for consumers who may not realize they are stealing copyrighted content. With its “six warnings” policy, CCI wants consumers to take action to protect themselves, their Internet accounts, and home networks well before any legal action is taken.

The latest implementation of the Copyright Alert System has watered down some of its earlier provisions, which could have put a customer’s Internet account at risk of being speed throttled or canceled. For now, consumers will receive six warnings about any suspected copyright infringement:

• The first three strikes carry no consequences and are intended to serve as informational warnings that the downloading of copyrighted content may be taking place;
• The fourth and fifth strikes will trigger forced browser redirects to a copyright education page and an online course on copyright law that must be successfully completed before the customer can once again visit suspect websites;
• Strike six means AT&T (and presumably other ISPs) will turn over the IP addresses of repeat offenders and comply with any subsequent court orders requesting the identity of the customer for possible legal action. AT&T does not say it will terminate the customer’s account, but does remind customers to be mindful of its Acceptable Use Policy, which does allow them to terminate service for illegal acts.

Edward Stroz

Consumers caught allegedly downloading copyrighted content can protest their innocence, but a $35 refundable filing fee is required to begin the arbitration process. If a consumer proves the files downloaded were not illegally obtained or that their account was flagged in error, they can have the warning canceled and get their filing fee refunded. But there are no penalties for CCI, its copyright tracking arm run by MarkMonitor, or the ISP if the copyright tracking system gets it wrong.

Critics of the copyright enforcement scheme claim it delivers too many benefits for CCI and its industry backers and insufficient protection for consumers misidentified during copyright infringement dragnets.

For-profit copyright tracking companies have made false allegations in the past, forcing CCI to hire an “independent and impartial technical expert” to verify the accuracy and security of the tracking technology used. CCI hired the firm of Stroz Friedberg as their expert.

Critics charge Stroz Friedberg is actually a recording industry lobbying firm, who worked with the RIAA for five years, earning $637,000.

Eric Friedberg

“It’s a disappointing choice, particularly in light of CCI’s professed desire to build public confidence in CAS and the fairness of its processes,” University of Idaho Law Professor Annemarie Bridy told TorrentFreak. “It would have been refreshing to see an academic computer scientist or some other truly independent party appointed to fill that important role.”

Bridy calls CCI’s Copyright Alert System lacking in transparency and stacked in favor of copyright holders, not consumers.

Stroz Friedberg’s appointment has also raised eyebrows among others that suggest their past lobbying violates the spirit of a Memorandum of Understanding signed by all parties requiring “independent and impartial” oversight.

“CCI’s choice of a former RIAA lobbying firm makes it clear that the copyright owner parties to the Memorandum of Understanding were more interested in appointing someone they trust than in appointing someone the public can trust,” Bridy adds.

Network World columnist Steven Vaughan-Nichols worries this is just the beginning of another copyright enforcement overreach:

The name of their game is to monitor your network traffic, with the help of your friendly ISP. Their justification for this is the usual made-up “facts” that content theft leads to “more than 373,000 jobs, $16 billion in lost wages, and $2.6 billion in lost taxes.” Yeah, I’m also sure someone downloading copyrighted porn leads to cats and dogs living together.

One reason I can’t buy into all this is that, as TorrentFreak points out, the Center’s expert who vouches that this all works is none other than Stroz Friedberg, a former RIAA lobbyist. Oh yeah, he doesn’t have bias for paranoid copyright protection companies.

What this means for you is that if your ISP is AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner, or Verizon, they’ll be watching your use of BitTorrent and letting CCI decide if you deserve some warnings, an end to your Internet service, or a full-out lawsuit.

[…] The RIAA, the MPAA, and other copyright “protectors” have never done anything for content creators. They’re all about protecting the businesses stuck with old, broken, pre-digital business models. Even that wouldn’t be so bad, except historically they’ve always vastly over-reacted.

We all know the stories of some poor slob who’s been slammed with tens of thousands of damages for downloading a song. What you may not know is that all the powers that be have to do is to claim something is copyrighted, whether it is or not, and multiple websites can be closed in minutes or your entire digital library can be destroyed.

Does that sound like paranoid fantasy? I wish.

[…] Oh yeah, I feel really sure that the CCI and friends are going to do a good job. Welcome to the new copyright world, same as the old, where you’re always considered guilty rather than that quaint idea of being considered innocent before proven otherwise.

CCI admits sophisticated pirates will probably never get caught by its Copyright Alert System, because most of them are moving to secured Virtual Private Network (VPN) technology that effectively masks their identities. TorrentFreak notes sales for VPN’s are skyrocketing, many headquartered far away from the reach of the United States in exotic, subpoena-proof locations like Cyprus, the Seychelles, Romania, and Ukraine.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/RT Thom Hartmann Copyright Alert System 3-20-12.flv[/flv]

RT’s Thom Hartmann presided over a debate about online copyright theft control measures proposed earlier this year by the entertainment industry and Internet Service Providers. Appearing with Hartmann are David Seltzer, Attorney & Mark Bledsoe. (March 20, 2012) (12 minutes)

Time Warner Cable customers in Kansas City are ground zero for the cable operator’s retransmission consent battles with over-the-air stations that leave cable viewers without a full lineup of local channels.

Just hours after Time Warner customers got back two local stations owned by Hearst Corporation, Meredith Corporation’s KCTV and KSMO are preparing to pull the plug at midnight tonight.

“Please know that we have tried very hard to reach an agreement with Time Warner Cable, so that our viewers would not have to miss any of our stations’ around-the-clock reporting of news, politics, traffic, weather emergencies, public service announcements, and favorite local and national programming,” reads a statement from the two stations. “We are disappointed in the outcome of our negotiations especially since we have successfully reached agreements with every major cable and satellite company that recognizes our fair market value. The fact is that we are only asking Time Warner Cable for pennies a day from your cable bill for our programming.”

They did not elaborate on exactly how many pennies more a day they were asking to receive. Time Warner Cable suggested they wanted a 200% rate hike.

Should negotiations fail, viewers in Kansas City will lose their local CBS and CW affiliates. Time Warner Cable’s recent response to these disputes is to replace missing local stations with out-of-area stations, in this case most likely Nexstar’s WROC-TV in Rochester, N.Y., a CBS affiliate. Time Warner has not bothered to find a fill-in CW station to date.

But Nexstar last week sued Time Warner Cable in U.S. District Court in the northern district of Texas alleging copyright infringement and breach of contract for importing its TV stations without permission. Nexstar wants a temporary restraining order and damages. If the judge hearing the case issues the restraining order, Kansas City will have to do without a CBS station on Time Warner’s lineup until the dispute is settled.

So far this year, there have 69 instances of local stations withholding their signals from either a cable, phone, or satellite operator in disputes over retransmission rights fees.

In a hearing held yesterday in Washington, several senators attacked the disputes that deprive paying subscribers of broadcast stations.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) wants to repeal the 1992 law that allows broadcasters to require pay television operators to get permission and, in an increasing number of cases, payment to carry local broadcast stations.

DeMint argues the law has outlived its usefulness.

But Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and others note the law also enacted several consumer protections and pro-competition policies that stopped programmers from withholding programming from competing pay television providers.

Kerry called demands to repeal the law altogether “radical” and suggested such moves could destroy local broadcasting. Cable operators want the power to negotiate contracts with out-of-area stations to leverage lower retransmission consent fees from broadcasters and provide customers with replacement stations when the two sides can’t or won’t agree to terms.

Broadcasters have suggested that could leave cable viewers with stations from distant cities, depriving viewers of important local news and emergency information.

For now, no action in Washington is anticipated. Broadcasters have leveraged their popularity to demand increasing payments for permission to carry their signals, and cable and other pay television operators, despite protests, usually agree to slightly lower fee increases and pass them right along to paying subscribers in the form of a rate increase.

Yesterday’s hearing, chaired by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), discussed changes in television technologies over the past two decades. It focused on examining the effectiveness of the Must-Carry law, a 1992 law currently in place for the cable industry. The Must-Carry law requires a variety of local broadcast stations to be viewed on pay-TV platforms. Today’s Must-Carry rights were enacted by Congress in the 1992 Cable Act, which the Supreme court upheld in 1997. Congress then found that cable systems have an “economic incentive” to alter their local broadcast signals and that, without Must-Carry rules, broadcasters’ viability is jeopardized.

Although Chairman Rockefeller sought to not have the hearing derailed by retransmission consent disputes, a significant portion of the hearing dealt with that specific issue.

Top cable and broadcasting executives, as well as law experts testify. Witnesses include Melinda Witmer from Time Warner Cable; Martin Franks of CBS; the National Association of Broadcasters’ Gordon Smith; Colleen Abdoulah from Wide Open West!; Gordon Smith from the American Cable Association; law professor and former Disney Washington executive Preston Padden; along with Mark Cooper from the Consumer Federation of America. Courtesy: C-SPAN (1 Hour, 41 Minutes)