Tag Archives: file sharing

US Government Denies Megaupload User Access To His Own Files

Posted on by
Reply

The case of the collateral damage brought about by January’s closure of file-sharing site Megaupload has deteriorated further for users who still cannot access their own private files.

Kyle Goodwin, an Ohio videographer who runs a business recording high school sporting events, has been told by the US Department of Justice that he has no right to demand his files back from the US government. Despite the fact he was supported by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and that the Motion Picture Association of America (one of the bodies represented by the prosecution against Megaupload) had no problem with him having his files returned to him, the US DOJ won’t budge.

The reasoning behind this decision is quite long-winded and has to do with the manner in which data was seized and the relevant warrants that were executed, so for the purposes of this blog we won’t delve into the specifics. If you’d like to know more about the legal issues surrounding this, Ars Technica goes into more depth.

The point I’m trying to make is that whenever you entrust any third-party to hold on to your files, you are potentially at the mercy of how they operate in relation to the law(s). If anything untoward is suspected of happening with that company, then you may suddenly find that you are separated from your own data with no indication of when you may be reunited with it.

If you are trying to run a business and important documents are out of reach, then this can pose some very serious problems. This situation has arisen from a legal issue – there are other ways you can lose your data that are completely out of your hands, such as hacking or server malfunctions.

If you need to make files available from a number of locations and to a number of people, then there is a safer and more secure way of doing this. DADapp has a user to user sharing system that allows for the easy private sharing of files, music, videos and photos – without the need for cloud hosting.

It’s more private than Facebook, easier than Windows networking and more flexible than Dropbox. If you’d like to share with your own world and not the whole world, then download DADapp and create your own private social network today.

Seized Megaupload Materials To Be Handed Over To Defense Lawyers

Posted on by
Reply

There has been a further development in the case brought by US authorities against file-sharing site Megaupload’s founder, Kim Dotcom.

Earlier this week we blogged about Mr Dotcom’s legal team accusing the US government of withholding materials seized in the January raid on the New Zealander’s Auckland mansion that are required by the defence team in order to be fully prepared for court appearances.

The New Zealand District Court’s Judge David Harvey has said local laws stipulate that any extradition hearing must be “properly informed”. He continued by saying that if the materials weren’t available to both parties then the case would be “one-sided” and merely an “administrative” affair.

Torrentfreak have published the 81-page ruling in which the judge made note of the fact that much of the evidence against Kim Dotcom was “contained on their computer equipment which was seized as a result of the activities of January 2012″.

In conclusion, the judge ruled that the relevant material(s) must be disclosed by June 19th (the extradition hearing is scheduled for August this year) so that the court could consider the plausibility of the charges being faced by the Megaupload founder, as this particular charge will have significant implications on other accusations.

In a separate ruling issued by the judge, Kim Dotcom is no longer considered a flight risk, which means he can now return to his rented mansion that had previously been considered unsuitable for someone being electronically monitored.

Megaupload Founder’s Lawyer Accuses US Government Of Stalling

Posted on by
Reply

It’s been a while since we have blogged about the criminal charges being faced by Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom, but the latest word on the story is a complaint from the legal team defending the accused.

Ira Rothken, a lawyer representing Dotcom, says that the US government is trying to “run out the clock” by withholding materials that the defence team will need access to in order to be fully prepared for key court appearances. The items in question were seized during the raid on Dotcom’s Auckland property in January of this year.

It is argued by Rothken that the confiscated data from surveillance cameras could shed light on the issue of whether or not there was excessive force used in the raid, while also pointing out that personal files belonging to Dotcom and his family are still being held.

The lawyer continues by saying that the actual search warrant was overly vague, which allowed the police to seize all digital media within the property, even if it was not relevant to the case and charges. And now, over four months since the raid, the defence team hasn’t been issued with copies of Dotcom’s own hard drives.

Speaking to Ars Technica, Rothken said: “They’re making an argument that they still haven’t made copies of the rest of the hard drives because it’s too burdensome to do it in New Zealand and they have to bring them back to the US… They could spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on helicopters and raids, but they can’t use the 800 number to Best Buy to buy the computer equipment they need to make mirror copies of hard drives.”

Their argument over the movement of the hard drives from New Zealand to the United States still rages on, and it may still transpire that Dotcom will be ordered by a court to disclose passwords to hard drives that are encrypted.

Kim Dotcom faces an extradition hearing in August, and you can read more about this story on Ars Technica.

Court Bans Dutch Pirate Party From Providing Pirate Bay Proxys

Posted on by
Reply

Despite recent rulings requiring ISPs to block access to The Pirate Bay, millions of internet users are finding ways to get around the restrictions. The Netherlands’ Pirate Party had been offering a proxy to let users gain access to the links hosted on The Pirate Bay without actually having to visit the site directly.

However, following a complaint lodged by the anti-piracy group Brein, a court in the Hague has ruled that The Pirate Party must cease publicising ways to circumvent blocks to The Pirate Bay. A subsequent court order has now instructed a further five ISPs to block access to the site in addition to two of the country’s biggest ISPs that were subject to a previous ruling.

The Dutch Pirate Party have responded to the ruling by posting on their homepage that the latest decision is ”a slap in the face for the free internet.” The statement continued: “More and more bits of the internet will have to be censored because they might be used to get access to ‘infringing’ sites, until eventually most of the internet will be unreachable.”

Meanwhile in the UK, despite the ruling on April 30th that ordered five ISPs to block access to The Pirate Bay, the UK’s Pirate Party still offers a proxy-based workaround enabling web users to procure links from there, allowing for the downloading of copyrighted material.

There has been no comment so far from the British Phonographic Industry (the organisation which pushed for legal action against The Pirate Bay in the UK) on whether or not it will be seeking a ruling similar to that gained by Brein.

Virgin Media Is First ISP To Block The Pirate Bay

Posted on by
Reply

Virgin Media are the first UK ISP to enforce this week’s High Court ruling by blocking its users from accessing The Pirate Bay, a site that facilitates illegal sharing of copyrighted music and films.

the pirate bay

As of Wednesday, Virgin Media internet customers trying to access The Pirate Bay found that they were redirected to a page explaining that the site was “not available through Virgin Media“.

The Swedish-based site is the most popular of its kind, offering an index of thousands of copyrighted songs, TV shows and films to download by using the BitTorrent file sharing protocol. But it is now the second site to be banned by the High Court after Newzbin2 was embargoed last year in what was a landmark ruling.

After Monday’s ruling, a Virgin Media spokesman said the company felt obligated to react:

“As a responsible ISP, Virgin Media complies with court orders addressed to the company but strongly believes that changing consumer behaviour to tackle copyright infringement also needs compelling legal alternatives, such as our agreement with Spotify, to give consumers access to great content at the right price.”

But despite the legal decision, not all of the ISPs ordered to block access to The Pirate Bay have done so. Everything Everywhere, O2, Sky and TalkTalk are yet to act, while BT have said they will make a decision on whether or not to cut off access within a few weeks.

The Pirate Bay is well-known for being used almost exclusively to share copyrighted materials, but does that make this High Court ruling fair? There are certainly major concerns about the future of internet freedom, and once there is a legal precedent such as this case, it can become easier for other sites to be blocked. Do you feel that the decision to ask ISPs to block access is fair on them, or should the authorities simply take down the site?

We always like to hear your thoughts on these matters, so please feel free to leave a comment here, or talk to us on Twitter or on our Facebook page.

ISPs To Block The Pirate Bay After High Court Ruling

Posted on by
1

the pirate bayThe war against illegal file sharing has taken a new turn that some parties believe is a step towards the sort of internet censorship that could pave the way for more draconian measures in the future.

The High Court has ruled that UK internet service providers must block access to The Pirate Bay, a Swedish site that hosts download links to copyrighted music, films and games. Virgin Media, TalkTalk, O2, Everything Everywhere and Sky have all been told to prevent their users from accessing the site. BT have requested a few more weeks to consider their position on blocking the site.

The British Phonographic Industry‘s chief executive Geoff Taylor said:

“The High Court has confirmed that The Pirate Bay infringes copyright on a massive scale… Its operators line their pockets by commercially exploiting music and other creative works without paying a penny to the people who created them. This is wrong – musicians, sound engineers and video editors deserve to be paid for their work just like everyone else.”

However, some argue that these measures will do little to curb the practice of illegal downloads by saying that site blocking is ineffective and can be circumvented using proxy servers and other techniques. Mark Little, principal analyst at Ovum, believes more should be done to educate the younger demographic “who just haven’t been convinced that doing this is somehow morally uncomfortable.”

Others are more concerned with the precedent this sets. Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, had this to say:

“It will fuel calls for further, wider and even more drastic calls for internet censorship of many kinds, from pornography to extremism. Internet censorship is growing in scope and becoming easier. Yet it never has the effect desired. It simply turns criminals into heroes.”

Do you think that this High Court ruling is a good thing? Will it be enough of a deterrent for people to stop illegally downloading, or do you think that prevention is better than the cure and that more should be done to educate those likely to offend?