Pirate Bay co-founder to be deported from Cambodia

One of the Pirate Bay founders may actually serve jail time after being arrested in Cambodia. Officials there say they are prepared to deport him, though they can’t confirm if and how he will wind up in his native Sweden.

Gottfrid Svartholm Warg was among four men convicted of copyright offenses by a Swedish court in 2009 over their Pirate Bay site and sentenced to a year in jail. They were also ordered to pay heavy damages to entertainment companies alongside the site’s financier.


The men did not attend their original trial and were out of the country at the time. In 2010, the other three founders took the case to appeal. Their convictions were upheld but their jail terms reduced to between four and 10 months while their court fines were increased. They were later refused permission to take the case to Sweden’s Supreme Court.

Svartholm Warg did not appear at the appeal, claiming ill-health. That meant his case was put on hold until last October when his time limit for appeal ran out and the original sentence became binding.

Cambodian officials announced yesterday that Svartholm Warg was arrested in the country on Thursday by officers executing an international arrest warrant on behalf of Sweden. Svartholm Warg appears to have been living in the country since 2008.

A police spokesman confirmed today that Svartholm Warg will be deported under Cambodian law which allows it to force foreigners with a criminal conviction out of the country. However, the spokesman said it is up to Sweden to decide where he will be sent. The matter is somewhat complicated by Cambodia and Sweden not having an extradition treaty.

I’d like to report whether Svartholm Warg or his colleagues have commented on the Pirate Bay site’s blog, but I live in the United Kingdom where the entire site is blocked by ISPs under a court order. What a joke.

Read More

Bruce Willis battling Apple over iTunes collection

Bruce Willis is, according to sources, considering legal action against Apple to ensure his offspring inherit his iTunes music collection. But the law isn’t fully understood, and the story not exactly watertight.

The Daily Mail claims Willis want to leave his huge digital music collection, built up over many years, to his daughters. However, and I quote, he has discovered he “does not actually own the tracks but is instead ‘borrowing’ them under a licence.” Willis is said to be considering a number of legal options, including establishing a family trust, and supporting existing legal challenges in five U.S. states related to the issue.


The law seems to be confused on this score, or perhaps it;s just the people reading up on it. The newspaper quotes a solicitor as saying, “Lots of people will be surprised on learning all those tracks and books they have bought over the years don’t actually belong to them. It’s only natural you would want to pass them on to a loved one. The law will catch up, but ideally Apple and the like will update their policies and work out the best solution for their customers.” But commenters across the Web have different ideas about the situation.

This all points to an ambiguity that needs to be rectified in no uncertain terms. Consumers of all kinds, right down to mainstream technophobes should be made aware of the true extent of their ownership over digital content. Even physical media doesn’t escape untouched, as evidenced by the video games industry. Publishers hate the used game industry and argue that selling a game on is illegal due to the actual content on the disc being copyrighted.

I very much doubt whether Willis is going to be the champion of consumer rights some are making him out to be, but this story, however legitimate or not it is, should at least start the conversational ball rolling. The law needs to be made clearer and less ambiguous, as digital content is only going to grow in popularity from this moment on.

Read More

Clint Eastwood and his empty Obama chair go viral on the InterWebs

I’m not sure Clint Eastwood has even ever been online before, but he’s now succeeded in going viral and kick-starting several memes after his RNC speech.

As you may have already seen or heard, veteran Hollywood actor and director Clint Eastwood made a surprise appearance at the Republican National Convention on Thursday (Aug. 30) to throw his support behind presidential candidate Mitt Romney. It was a sad, shambling performance from an 82-year-old man, and I suspect the GOP is already regretting the booking.


However, the best and worst thing about the speech was Eastwood’s conversation with an empty chair he claimed represented President Obama. He poked fun at the empty chair, asked it questions, and generally used the prop as a tool to entertain and enthrall the assembled Republican members. While everyone on the outside looking in watched in open-jawed astonishment.

One quick-witted wag immediately set up a Twitter account with the name @InvisibleObama, which gained over 20,000 followers in just 45 minutes. At the time of writing that follower count has more than doubled to 45,000. There are also other Twitter accounts trying to mock the bizarre sketch, but none have got quite as much attention.

A meme has since sprung up around Clint Eastwood and his conversation with an imaginary President Obama. It’s called ‘Eastwooding’, and involves nothing more than Photoshopped images of Eastwood and his empty chair. Mashable has already pulled together some of the finer examples, including sad Keanu sitting on the chair, and Eastwood as Dirty Harry threatening an abandoned armchair.

Even Obama himself got in on the fun by tweeting a picture of himself sitting in the presidential chair with the accompanying line of, “This seat’s taken.”

Clint Eastwood and his empty Obama chair go viral on the InterWebssrc="https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/2325704772/wrrmef61i6jl91kwkmzq_normal.png" />Barack Obama
✔@BarackObama


This seat's taken. OFA.BO/c2gbfi, href="http://t.co/jgGZTb02">pic.twitter.com/jgGZTb02

31 Aug 12
Reply
Retweet
href="https://twitter.com/intent/favorite?tweet_id=241392153148915712">Favorite





The Internet is a law unto itself, and it has decided to mock Eastwood’s performance at the RNC. Whatever your political views, that can’t be good for the GOP, Mitt Romney, or indeed Clint Eastwood.

Read More

Joel Tenenbaum pays for music piracy

Joel Tenenbaum, one of the few people caught sharing copyrighted content online who decided not to pay up to make it all go away, has been told to, well, pay up.

According to BBC News, in 2005 Joel Tenenbaum, then 16-years-old, was accused of file-sharing and hit with a fine of $5,250 for seven songs. He offered $500 but was declined. In 2007 the case went to court for the first time. Damages of $675,000 were eventually awarded to the music labels who sued Tenenbaum for the 31 songs he now admitted to having downloaded, but he requested a new jury trial.


Today that request was denied, with District Court Judge Rya Zobel affirming the penalty. The judge also saw fit to add an extra verbal admonishment, stating in the judgment [PDF link], “There was ample evidence of willfulness and the need for deterrence based on Tenenbaum’s blatant contempt of warnings and apparent disregard for the consequences of his actions. In spite of the overwhelming evidence from which the jury could conclude that Tenenbaum’s activities were willful, the award of $22,500 per infringement not only was at the low end of the range – only 15% of the statutory maximum – for willful infringement, but was below the statutory maximum for non-willful infringement.” Well, that makes it OK then, I guess.

Should Tenenbaum have stopped doing what he was doing when he was warned against it? Yes, of course. But does that continued infringement on copyrights, willful or otherwise, justify such a huge cash amount in damages? Most right-thinking people would say no. It doesn’t matter that it’s a lot less than the maximum that could have been awarded, it’s still too much for the crime that has been committed.

The maximum is absolutely ludicrous, as Tenenbaum would have been hit with a bill for several million dollars had the jury truly taken against him. But $675,000 is still a sum of money that means Tenenbaum will be in debt for the rest of his life, barring some miraculous lottery win. And all for downloading and distributing just 31 songs.

The RIAA sees this as a glorious victory, but what does it really achieve? Tenenbaum has had his life ruined, but the money is small change to those organizations who’ll (eventually, some day, maybe) receive it. And I can guarantee this verdict won’t do a thing to put anyone else off sharing content online. It just makes the RIAA look bad, and the record companies look greedy and incompetent. Victory!

Read More

German law firm to name and shame “porn downloaders

A law firm in Germany is to begin publicly naming Internet users it believes have infringed copyright by sharing hardcore pornography without permission. A company insider says Urmann will start by targeting those users most likely to be embarrassed by such publicity, though officially its denying that claim.

Urmann mirrors the tactics of law firms in other countries by writing to alleged copyright offenders and asking for a settlement fee to avoid court action. In this case the fee is €650 euros (approx US$815.)


Whether the recipients have genuinely breached copyright isn’t clear. In similar situations in other countries, large numbers of the recipients deny the claims. That’s prompted suggestions that law firms are unlikely to proceed with legal action and are simply relying on a proportion of recipients being frightened enough to pay up.

Urmann now says that from 1 September it will begin publishing details of some of the people on its list of alleged offenders. This list could have as many as 150,000 people on it.

Some reports quoting an insider suggested that the firm would prioritize customers whose IP addresses corresponded to a church, police station or an embassy of a Middle East country: all workplaces where being publicly linked to hardcore porn would be a particular embarrassment.

The company has said this isn’t the case and it will instead prioritize those people accused of downloading the most content.

The legalities of such a tactic are unclear. Urmann believes it is legal because of a German court ruling that said law firms to publish the names of their clients’ opponents as a promotional tactics. However, that seems to be designed more for dealing with corporations (“Hire us because we took on Megacorp!”) and might not hold up for naming private individuals.

There’s also the question of what happens if the company falsely names somebody who hasn’t downloaded any material, which sounds like a recipe for a defamation suit.

In practical terms, Urmann may only be able to carry out its naming and shaming for a few people and hope that puts fear into the rest. Once it does publicly name somebody, they’ve got much less incentive to pay up rather than sit back and wait to be sued.

Read More

Piracy site owner jailed despite hosting no content

For many years operators of questionable video content sites assumed they are untouchable if they don’t actually host any copyright-infringing material. That assumption has proved incorrect in several countries, with theUnited Kingdomthe latest example.

Anton Vickerman, who operated the website surfthechannel.com, has received a four year jail term after a private prosecution. He was not convicted of copyright infringement itself, but rather conspiracy to defraud.


Sufthechannel was a directory of links to online videos, some of which were entirely legitimate while others infringed copyright. Vickerman made an estimated £250,000 (US$400,000) a year from selling advertising on the site.

Police raided Vickerman’s home in 2009 but did not press charges. However, they were controversially accompanied on the raid by members of the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT), a media industry body. FACT was allowed access to Vickerman’s computer despite the police dropping the case.

FACT launched a private prosecution against Vickerman that led to his conviction. His wife was charged with the same offense but found not guilty. The director general of FACT said “This case conclusively shows that running a website that deliberately sets out to direct users to illegal copies of films and TV shows will result in a criminal conviction and a long jail sentence”

The verdict came as a surprise to many given that the same “conspiracy to defraud” charge failed to gain convictions in at least two similar high-profile cases where sites linked to videos rather than hosting it. The charge is designed to cover cases of fraud that could otherwise slip through legal loopholes, though there have been previous concerns that it could see people convicted of behavior that is not criminal.

The sentence itself has also raised eyebrows. Had Vickerman been convicted of copyright infringement, the maximum sentence he could have received would have been two years.

Read More

FTC: Facebook scammed app developers

The Federal Trade Commission has accused Facebook of ripping off app developers with a bogus verification scheme. It says the company may have made almost a hundred thousand dollars without actually doing any work.



The alleged trickery came with a program by which Facebook charged developers $375 (reduced to $175 for non-profit groups) to check that an app was “secure, respectful and transparent” and generally something that users could trust.


Those apps which passed the review process were allowed to display a green tick logo and were given priority treatment in both search results and directory listings.

The FTC says all was not as it seemed however: “Facebook took no steps to verify either the security of a verified application’s website or the security the application provided for the user information it collected, beyond such steps as it may have taken regarding any other Platform Application.”

According to the FTC, that means that not only was Facebook ripping off app developers, but misled users about the supposed security of the applications.

The details of the alleged scam emerged in the final settlement documents covering a range of Facebook violations including previously reported details that it misled customers about the way privacy settings worked on the site.

Facebook has now formally agreed the settlement. As a result it will now have to make several changes to its policies, including not changing the privacy levels on user data without getting express permission. The site will undergo independent audits of its privacy policies over the next 20 years.

The way FTC settlements work mean that Facebook is making no legal admission of any wrongdoing. If any of the app developers affected by the alleged scam took civil action, they could not use the settlement as evidence of Facebook’s wrongdoing.

Read More

Filesharing site Demonoid in triple turmoil

As with Pirate Bay, it may always be too early to declare filesharing site Demonoid completely deal. But the site is currently unavailable and its operators have suffered three significant blows.

The first came last week when the site was knocked offline by a “massive” distributed denial of service attack. Who was behind the attack remains unclear: the motivation would be with law enforcement activities, though officially at least this isn’t the type of tactic normally associated with official bodies.


The site itself was physically located in Ukraine. It’s now confirmed that the second blow for the site came when the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs asked ColoCall to close down the site following contact from Interpol.

ColoCall says it complied with the request and allowed officials to take a copy of all data on the server for evidence purposes. It says it gave Demonoid several warning in the past that it had received complaints and might have to close the site.

The third strike comes with the news that Mexican authorities are engaged in a criminal investigation involving the operators of the site, one of whom is believed to have been based in Mexico at one point. One person has previously been arrested in Monterrey in relation to the site. Since the site closure, it’s emerged that it was this investigation that triggered the Interpol alert and in turn the Ukrainian shutdown.

There appears to be a political element to the events behind the shutdown. It doesn’t appear that Demonoid broke any laws within Ukraine itself and it made a point of blocking residents of the country from accessing the site. However, the Ukrainian government appears to have taken the tough stance to help shake the image of Eastern Europe as a harbor for piracy, most likely with the aim of boosting trade relations with the United States.

Read More

Patent trolling could get costly

Patent “holders” who bring frivolous lawsuits could be forced to pay the legal costs of defendants under proposed legislation. A bi-partisan bill would apply to trolls and “legitimate” users alike.

The proposals would, if passed into law, become the “Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes Act” (or SHIELD.) The big difference is that a court would be able to force a plaintiff to pay defense costs if it decides the claim “did not have a reasonable likelihood of succeeding.”


Congressman Peter DeFazio said the bill was aimed at patent trolls who buy up patents and effectively scare legitimate businesses into making a settlement because they fear risking a million dollars or more in legal costs by defending themselves in court: “Patent trolls don’t create new technology and they don’t create American jobs… My legislation would force patent trolls to take financial responsibility for their frivolous lawsuits”

However, as ArsTechnica spotted, the precise wording of the bill doesn’t appear to restrict the measures to patent trolls. Even companies that are actively producing the product covered by their patent would still be affected if they brought a case deemed frivolous. That could risk deterring small firms who have genuinely been ripped off by major competitors from taking action.

Realistically there seems little prospect of the bill becoming law. Even leaving aside the struggle any bill faces to make it through the legislative process, SHIELD opens a tricky can of legal worms.

The bill is designed to cover software patents, but there’s some dispute about whether software can be patented rather than it simply being a case of code being copyrighted. As a very rough rule of thumb, lower courts are perfectly happy to hear software patent cases, while on the very rare exceptions that a case gets to the Supreme Court, it’s not yet established that software patents will hold.

That’s led to some awkward wording in SHIELD, which tries to define what a software patent is, without taking any legal responsibility for establishing that a software patent is indeed valid. If SHIELD did take effect, that would likely be a red alert for more creative lawyers.

Read More

Anonymous fights trademark application

And the award for ‘Best Idea Of The Year’ goes to Early Flicker, a company trying to trademark the logo and slogan used by Anonymous.

Anonymous, for those who aren’t aware, is a disparate group of hacktivists which started out fighting the Church of Scientology but has since expanded its operations to support a free and open Internet and fight against large corporations. They’re loved by the people they stand up for, and both hated and feared by those they make trouble for.


Whatever your personal feelings towards Anonymous and their activities, it’s hard not to side with them in their latest fight. According to Forbes, a company called Early Flicker has applied to the Institut National De La Propriété Industrielle (INPI) for the trademark to the Anonymous logo (seen above left) and the slogan, “We are Anonymous, We do not forgive, We do not forget. Expect us.” Which is surely the height of both arrogance and madness.

Early Flicker has no hold over either of these Anonymous properties, and yet it’s trying to claim ownership in order to sell all manner of different products with the well-recognized logo and slogan on. The company is in fact already selling Anonymous-branded clothing, and I guess this trademark application is intended to stop any other company from doing the same in France.

Unsurprisingly this hasn’t gone down too well with Anonymous, which has launched Operation AnonTrademark in retaliation. Anonymous has vowed to shut down any online activities of Early Flicker and get the trademark application halted in its tracks. In a video posted to YouTube it also warned:


“Their [Early Flicker's] arrogance and ignorance of what they have done will not go unpunished. Anonymous will take down any business they have going on the internet and the ninety nine per cent will not stop until the registration has been revoked and a public apology has been made. The name of Anonymous will not be the whore of the world.”

I’m no expert on the rules regarding trademarks but you’d assume that someone seeking ownership over a name or logo would be required to, I don’t know, prove that they have a legal right to do so. This has to be classified as a mistake on all counts, and I fear the punishment meted out to Early Flicker will be harsh.

Read More

Apple & Samsung’s court battle begins

While many major portable gadget manufacturers have been engaged in patent wars for the past few years, most cases are either thrown out by judges, tied up in injunctions, or wind up in a pre-trial settlement. Not so for Apple and Samsung who today begin a full-blown trial in what Samsung is dismissing as a “fighting over rectangles.”

This particular case involves several claims and counterclaims, but the key is whether Samsung’s devices copy the look of the iPhone and iPad. Previous rulings have seen mixed results: Apple got a temporary sales ban on the original Samsung Galaxy Tab in the US, but its claims were tossed completely by a British judge (albeit with the logic that there’s no confusion because the Tab isn’t as “cool” as the iPad.)


The US case will now go before a jury that was selected yesterday. The case judge has already ruled that although the injunction made worldwide news, Apple lawyer’s can’t bring it up as an argument to persuade the jury that there’s something to their claims.

The matter at stake here isn’t simply whether Samsung violated Apple’s patents, but whether those patents were valid in the first place, and how they should be interpreted.

The Apple claim in the case certainly seems ambitious. For example, it complains that Samsung copied its design of having a black rectangular border with rounded corners and a flat upper surface, with minimal adornment on the border.

The problem is that while Apple’s design is always distinctive, what stands out is its simplicity and lack of unusual features. An Apple design is defined more by what it doesn’t feature than what it does.

It’s always hard to predict how a jury will react to a case, or exactly how the judge will rule on the interpretation of law. But in terms of real-life justice, it’s hard to see how anyone will have bought a Samsung Tab genuinely believing it to be an iPad, which in turn makes it hard to see how Apple has suffered substantial damage.

Read More

Google may avoid European court battle

The European Union has announced it is in serious talks to reach a settlement with Google in an ongoing antitrust case. The settlement would avoid a lengthy court case and the potential for large fines.

The case is similar in principle to questions raised by politicians and officials in theUS. It centers on two points: Google has a very large market share inEurope(estimated at 90 percent of searches); and Google appears to favor its own products and services when determining the order and prominence of search results.


Neither of these points is illegal in itself. The argument is that the combination of the two may constitute unfair, unreasonable or even unlawful behavior under European Union trading rules.

There are also claims Google took content from review sites without permission, that it blocks some rival companies from advertising on Google, and that it puts up technical barriers to make it harder for Google advertisers to take their campaigns elsewhere.

Google has now put forward a proposed settlement. The EU says there’s enough substance to the proposals that it is ready to discuss the technical details of how they would work. That, and the fact that the EU has gone public, suggests it is happy with the general principle of what Google’s offering.

There’s no word whatsoever on what the settlement might involve, other than the fact that it’s probably going to involve Google changing its policies rather than paying large penalties. The chances are it won’t formally admit to any wrongdoing as this could open it up to legal action from companies who believe their sites have been unfairly downgraded in Google rankings.

While it’s clear that Google would benefit from avoiding a formal judgment and potentially heavy penalties, the New York Times also notes that a settlement might be in the interests of the EU as well. It argues that by the time the case concluded, any changes the EU ordered might be irrelevant because the Internet world changes so rapidly.

Read More

Samsung insults the free market after jury issues victory for Apple, $1 billion verdict

A jury this week found that Samsung infringed on Apple iPhone patents and issued a verdict worth more than a $1 billion.

It’s safe to say that a wake up call has been issued for technology companies around the world: Don’t copy, don’t steal, but most importantly — don’t insult the free market.


That’s exactly what Samsung did after the jury issued the verdict. Their statement:

“Today’s verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple’s claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer.”

How will preventing the copying of design and user interface lead to fewer choices? Shouldn’t it force others to continue to innovate and provide more choices?

Will it lead to higher prices? Here’s a message to Samsung: We operate in a free market. That means you’re free to compete against the next guy and if you can do it better and sell it at a cheaper price, than you’re going to out-sell and out-compete that guy. Instead of complaining and making outrageous accusations, why don’t you actually go out an innovate a better smartphone?

And patent law is being manipulated? Because according to Samsung, simply following the law and having a jury decide in favor of the law is considered manipulation.

One thing Samsung did get right in their statement is the part about consumers having the right to choices. Samsung is just upset that the consumers choice has been with Apple and will likely continue with Apple.

Again, If they don’t like it, go innovate something better.

To blame the law and claim that innovation is going to suffer as a result of a court trial is absolutely ridiculous.

And my favorite part: “Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer.”

So after complaining about how Apple bullied you into a lawsuit and proved that you copied aspects of their iPhone, you still say that you’re going to innovate and offer choices for the consumer.

This is what Apple wanted all along. This is what consumers who just didn’t like the iPhone wanted all along. They don’t want an iPhone copycat, they want something different. Something better.

If anything, let this trial be a wakeup call to all businesses. If you don’t like the success of your competitors, then do something about it. Innovate something better, something less expensive.

But never complain about innovation suffering. Innovation never suffers — lazy companies suffer.

Read More

Outcome of Apple, Samsung lawsuit could determine future of smartphones

The outcome of the month-long legal battle between Apple and Samsung could determine more than which company receives a hefty payday.

It could also determine the future designs and features of all smartphones on the market.


The New York Times published a report Sunday looking into the test that nine jurors are expected to have this week, determining if Samsung will owe Apple $2.5 billion in damages for infringing on any of the company’s patents or if Apple will owe $422 million in a similar countersuit.

The Times reports that the outcome of the lawsuit will determine if the future of the smartphone will be erratically different from the iPhone, or if we’ll continue to see a line of iPhone copycats.

“I think what we’ll see is the diversification of designs in the marketplace if Apple wins,” Christopher Varani, an intellectual property lawyer said in an interview.

If Samsung wins, “Expect to see an awful lot of Apple knockoffs without fear of retribution,” Michael Gartenberg, an analyst for the technology research firm Gartner, told the Times.

As marketshare has shifted to Android-based smartphones, Apple is determined to prove that the success of companies like Samsung is due to Apple’s design and iOS.

The case, however, has opened the history books for the original iPhone, showing off photos of prototypes that look considerably different than the iPhone we’re used to today.

Multiple media reports have said that Samsung has continuously been on the defensive side of the fight during the month-long battle.

The entire legal battle could have been avoided altogether if Samsung would have agreed to a patent license that Apple offered at a rate of $30 per smartphone and $40 per tablet, which would have allowed Samsung to design their phone’s operating system around similar schematics of iOS, the mobile operating system for the iPhone and iPad.

With $2.5 billion on the line for Samsung to lose, that deal could haunt them this coming week in court.

Read More

Google facing $22.5 million fine for Apple sneakiness

Google is reported to have agreed to pay $22.5 million to settle claims that it broke promises about respecting consumer privacy. The fine would be the highest ever paid to the Federal Trade Commission.

Read More

Samsung Galaxy Tab not cool, judge rules

Samsung has finally tasted a success in its ongoing battle with Apple over alleged patent infringements with the Galaxy Tab. But that taste is bittersweet with the ruling partially decided by the idea that the Tab isn’t as

“cool” as the iPad.

Read More