BitTorrent's popularity leads to mass copyright litigation

Jul 14, 2012 By Bill Torpy

Last year, Robin Mason got letters alleging her computer was flagged for downloading a pornographic movie and that she was being sued in federal court. She said she was also informed she could make the embarrassing case go away for a settlement of several thousand dollars.

The accusation stunned the from Rome, Ga., who is still flustered when recounting the moment.

"It freaked me out," she said. "I never even watched a porno. I'm not that kind of person."

Mason was one of 5,829 John and Jane Does across the nation who were sued by West Coast Productions Inc., the purveyors of "Booty Talk," and many more titles unprintable in a family newspaper. In an interview, Mason was too embarrassed to mention the title, laughing nervously and saying it was "too nasty."

Since 2010, more than 250,000 people have been accused of illegally downloading movies off the Internet using a technology called BitTorrent, which makes transferring large files easier.

"We have a lot of consumers out there who think that getting something for free is OK, that it isn't stealing," said Elizabeth Morgan, an Atlanta attorney who handled the case for the movie makers when it was refiled in federal court in Georgia. "New technology like BitTorrent makes easier. It facilitates piracy. It's a new way to steal."

Others contend the are a new way for lawyers to make money. The cases are dubbed "trolling lawsuits" for the way they encourage lawyers to dig up thousands of potential defendants and sue them, often in one fell swoop. Many are so-called John Doe suits, filed against people unknown to the movie makers and their attorneys.

In 2010, Voltage Pictures, makers of the Academy Award-winning "The Hurt Locker," filed suit in federal court against "Does 1-24,583." hire techies to track down those who have allegedly downloaded movies over the Internet by uncloaking the of their , or IP address, a unique numeric identifier assigned to their computer modem.

While transmitting or receiving data, each computer leaves a trail through its IP address. The attorneys then go to court to subpoena the user's Internet provider to get the name of the person behind that address. If the court allows that to happen - and there has been mixed success in that - then the computer user generally gets an email or a letter threatening a lawsuit if he or she doesn't pay a settlement.

Settlement figures vary, but are usually in the $2,000-$5,000 range. Atlanta attorney Blair Chintella, who defended Mason, said the amounts have been honed over the past couple years to pressure people to settle quickly.

"It's a price point," said Chintella. "It's about or slightly below what it takes to hire an attorney."

The amount, he said, is a figure that people will often pay because they are frightened or embarrassed, even if they did not download the movie. In essence, Chintella said, the method is legal extortion.

"In porn cases, they use that as a bargaining tool," said Chintella, who has defended about 90 such cases. His clients include: "People worried about security clearance. People who are looking for a job worry that it will come up (during a Google search of their name). A client who is a minister is worried to have his name associated with this." Chintella said people can be wrongfully accused if they have unsecured wireless at their homes or several people using the same computer.

Mason said she was threatened by a negotiator. "They said it'll be in the newspaper. They said the whole community would know."

Her case was later dropped, although the judge did not allow her to recoup the $2,000 retainer she paid Chintella or the thousands in fees he incurred (but was not paid for) in pursuing her case. Chintella argues the legal system's unwillingness to dock plaintiffs' attorneys allows them to keep pursuing such cases, knowing there is little downside to their actions.

The lawsuits against BitTorrent users represent the latest round of copyright-related legal action media companies are using to stem the onslaught of unauthorized downloads of their products.

The technology facilitates the transfer of large files by breaking down data into smaller pieces and sending it to the computer seeking them, where the data is reassembled as a whole. Each member of the network uploads and downloads, and they are unknown to each other. The California company that created the network claims more than 100 million users worldwide.

BitTorrent technology makes it harder for media companies to track who is stealing their content because there is no central clearinghouse distributing the data, as there was a decade ago with Napster, the site that facilitated illegal downloading of music before it was shut down.

John Steele, a Chicago attorney who has sued 30,000 people (or, more precisely, 30,000 IP addresses), isn't apologetic toward those sued for allegedly downloading movies.

"I don't feel sorry for them," he said. "For many years they got away with it. They are upset because they are completely busted."

Steele represents adult and calls those he is suing "thieves" and "bad guys." The lawsuits, he said, are a simply a matter of right or wrong. "We have to make a decision: Do we let people steal whatever they want? Or do we fight them? It's easy as hell to steal. The only thing holding (people from illegally downloading) is their sense of right and wrong."

He laughed off accusations the settlement offers are extortion. "Settling is what attorneys do. It's 'You did something wrong. Now we need to come to a resolution.' "

Several courts have ruled that the John Doe mega-cases are an abuse of the system, holding that attorneys are improperly trying to shoehorn a load of disparate instances into one case, and using one filing fee to pursue a suit, instead of paying 300 - or even 24,528 fees. In the past year, two federal judges in Atlanta have broken up Doe cases, telling the attorneys to file smaller, more specific cases.

So the plaintiffs' attorneys are suing in smaller batches. And they are still using the courts to identify IP users, so they can be named and sued.

Ernesto Van Der Sar, who runs TorrentFreak.com, a blog that discusses how copyright issues affect BitTorrent, said many people are stunned to receive notice of the downloading.

"People think they are anonymous on the Internet," he said. "Most don't know they have an identifiable IP address. They're surprised to find out."

TyAnna Herrington, a Georgia Institute of Technology professor who teaches intellectual copyright law, acknowledges that getting users to pay for digital content is a vexing problem, but sees the suits "as an opportunity to cast a wide net and see what pops up.

"I don't see this as a way to fight copyright abuse," she said. "It's more a way to make a lot of money real quick."

Still, the criticism hasn't deterred the likes of Steele, who estimates most cases eventually settle. And more are coming. "We just filed a couple hundred more cases," he said.

Explore further: Digital dilemma: How will US respond to Sony hack?

5 /5 (4 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Downloading case to have 23,000 defendants

May 11, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- How many of you remember the film The Expendables? It was an action flick, featuring some of the biggest names in blowing things up, and soon it will be known as the film that has created ...

Industry wants to ban Minn. woman from downloading

Jul 06, 2009

(AP) -- Just weeks after a federal jury ruled that a Minnesota woman must pay $1.92 million for illegally sharing copyright-protected music, the recording industry wants to make sure she doesn't do it again.

US appeals court considers wiretapping lawsuits

Aug 31, 2011

(AP) -- A federal appeals court panel in Seattle will consider Wednesday whether to revive two cases claiming the government has monitored the communications of millions of Americans since 9/11.

Minnesota song-sharing case heads for 3rd trial

Jan 28, 2010

(AP) -- A trade group representing the major music labels said Wednesday it will reject a reduced penalty for a central Minnesota woman found guilty of sharing 24 songs over the Internet, and will instead begin preparing ...

Recommended for you

Digital dilemma: How will US respond to Sony hack?

5 hours ago

The detective work blaming North Korea for the Sony hacker break-in appears so far to be largely circumstantial, The Associated Press has learned. The dramatic conclusion of a Korean role is based on subtle ...

UN General Assembly OKs digital privacy resolution

8 hours ago

The U.N. General Assembly has approved a resolution demanding better digital privacy protections for people around the world, another response to Edward Snowden's revelations about U.S. government spying.

Online privacy to remain thorny issue: survey

10 hours ago

Online privacy will remain a thorny issue over the next decade, without a widely accepted system that balances user rights and personal data collection, a survey of experts showed Thursday.

Spain: Google News vanishes amid 'Google Tax' spat

Dec 16, 2014

Google on Tuesday followed through with a pledge to shut down Google News in Spain in reaction to a Spanish law requiring news publishers to receive payment for content even if they are willing to give it away.

User comments : 11

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

InterPur
Jul 14, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
frajo
2.5 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2012
A societal system that allows people to amass money by acting immorally and indecently promotes indecency and immorality.
Of course, such a system cannot be one of stability and will be toppled some day due to its growing disharmonies - potentially by means of indecent and immoral acts.
btb101
5 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2012
magnet torrents are now out that stop any form of tracking. only those who use the older torrent/ip methods are easily tracked. (or so i am led to understand).

either way, my argument for downloading is this....

do you buy a car without testing/checking it out? Did you do the same thing to your house? Of course you did.
so why is it...
you have to pay to see a movie, listen to an album or buy the complete game before you know if you like it?
When i can see half a movie without paying (stay for the whole film you have to pay), listen to an album all the way through (not just an odd track or a one minute sample) or play the complete game then decide if its any good (demos are always the best bits)... then people will stop downloading..

oh.. and drop the rip off prices, the companies make the majority of money, not the artists... Give it back to those who really deserve it.

Claudius
Jul 14, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2012
My sense of right and wrong says that it's immoral for content producers to artifically restrict the availability of a good that is not scarce and costs nothing to reproduce. The copy they are selling has no intrinsic value - the value is in the work that went into producing the first copy - which makes selling the copies like printing false money. You can print as much as you want and they're still just worthless paper.

Intellectual Property is intagible property - you can't steal it, sell it, trade it like tangible property because it's not a physical thing. It is merely carried by physical things but isn't bound to them. That's why arguing that copying is theft is like arguing that whistling a tune is theft; even re-creating a scene from a porn movie in your own bedroom would be theft by that logic.

Theft is when you remove something
Piracy is when you reproduce something
Jotaf
4.5 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2012
Eikka has it right; the economics work for manufactured goods but not for infinitely copyable content. It's not that people don't value the creation of content -- they do, but once an album or movie is out, they know it costs nothing for them to get it.

So... Charge for creation of content. This is what happens at Kickstarter. People will gladly pay, because they know without their money the content will never be produced in the first place.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2012
A societal system that allows people to amass money by acting immorally and indecently promotes indecency and immorality.


Yet disallowing people to do so is a hundred times more immoral.

And I dont even see why porn is immoral, it is not.
Osiris1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2012
Lets see! Run it back for a moment. A sleazebag trolls down some down at the heels 'Ho Stroll' lookin for faded Ho's and other street scum; hires a few fo a buck, a chance ta f*ck, and maybe throws in a jug o' bad panther juice hooch. He rents a room in a lice ridden cockroach trap two-steps-ahead-o-da-firetrap-condemner; snags a camcorder from a pawnshop for maybe a fin or two; plops da trollup and da bum on a filthy bed in front of the cam on a ten buck tripod and a couple of trouble lites outa Wally World and he's a 'big movie producer'. Two hours of piston action later from his 'mooovie starz' and he has material for six movies courtesy of cut and patchin and reproducin in his pooter. So he puts the stuff in the market system and some 'leaks' out. Maybe intentionally. Now the lawsuit machine comes in with lawyers infinitely scummier than the 'PROfuction company extortin thousands of times production costs from innocent victims randomly and falsely 'accused'....
CardacianNeverid
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2012
magnet torrents are now out that stop any form of tracking. only those who use the older torrent/ip methods are easily tracked. (or so i am led to understand) -btb

That's not correct. A magnet link just means that the torrent site, such as The Pirate Bay, doesn't store .torrent files, but just a hash address (magnet link). The hash code is distributed among peers in a swarm and once you enter the active pool, the .torrent file info is downloaded into your bittorent client and the download can proceed just is it would have before (ie, without magnet links). So, this mechanism offers you exactly zero extra protection.

Peerblock is also pointless an ineffective. The only way to be reasonably sure of anonymity is to use a VPN proxy service or a different download method to bittorent.

Argiod
1 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2012
What was not mentioned here is that hackers can covertly take over your computer and hack via your IP. In that case, you have no way to prove that it happened. You get prosecuted; the true hacker gets away clean; esp. if they live in a country with no extradition treaty with the United States. These days criminals have rights, and victims can only count what they have left and move on.
Anda
1 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2012
Who wrote this article?
"new bittorrent technology" :) it's not new and bittorrent is just a client.

Anyway, poor americans. You want to be free now, come to Europe.
Aloken
not rated yet Jul 16, 2012
What was not mentioned here is that hackers can covertly take over your computer and hack via your IP. In that case, you have no way to prove that it happened. You get prosecuted; the true hacker gets away clean; esp. if they live in a country with no extradition treaty with the United States. These days criminals have rights, and victims can only count what they have left and move on.


Covertly? Really? They can do so without alerting the owner/user of the computer but to this day no hacker has ever managed to take over a computer without leaving traces.
Mia29
not rated yet Jul 20, 2012
I don't think it is possible to hack my computer and to hide this fact and stay invisible. And I myself using encrypted connections with PirateRay.com, I try never to download stuff from inet directly. only using proxy and secure tunnels, that program gives. Works good so far.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.