Well, it looks like Kim Dotcom’s Mega, the cloud storage service and successor to the now defunct Megaupload, could be facing its first big legal problem. And it’s happening less than two weeks after launching to the public.

A new “collaborative” search engine, called Mega-Search.me, recently went online, and it allows Mega’s 1 million users to share the files they’ve uploaded to their own personal cloud lockers. It works by allowing people to add links to the files stored in their Mega account. Those links can then be searched publicly and downloaded by anyone. You can also vote on each submitted link, view the number of downloads for each file, and more.

The problem with Mega-Search.me is that most of the files are illegally pirated music, movies, TV shows, and software — not to mention lots of pornography. It’s worth noting that there is an “infringement” button linking to Mega’s policy that’s prominently featured on Mega-Search.me’s top navigation bar, for whatever that’s worth (which is likely nothing).

Mega is supposed to be a cloud storage site that’s so unbelievably secure that Mega’s management team can’t even determine what’s hosted in each user’s account. That conveniently allows Mega to claim ignorance when authorities accuse it of facilitating piracy.

It’s likely the creators of Mega-Search.me aren’t directly affiliated with Dotcom or Mega, but that doesn’t mean Mega is off the hook. First of all, Mega-Search.me shows that Mega is being used for illegal purposes. And while Mega may not feel like it has a responsibility to police its users to make sure they’re not uploading pirated files, the fact that it’s allowing users to access those files publicly on a site like Mega-Search.me definitely does obligate Mega to remove them.

It’ll be interesting to see how Mega responds to the situation. If the service wants to be respected as a legitimate business venture, it will avoid supporting Mega-Search.me and figure out how to prevent this type of situation from happening in the future. If it doesn’t, then Mega could easily become the next nut for authorities to crack.

Via TechCrunch

Microsoft recently sent out a string of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) infringement notices that requested URLs from the Huffington Post, Washington Post, Wikipedia, and the U.S. Government to be removed from Google’s search engine results.

The infringement notices were aimed at preventing unauthorized distribution of Microsoft’s Windows 8 Beta. The list of 65 websites, documented by ChillingEffects, contains several erroneous examples of URLs  (from the BBC, Buzzfeed, CNN, HuffPo, TechCrunch, RealClearPolitics, Rotten Tomatoes, ScienceDirect, and others) that are clearly not violating Microsoft’s copyrights. And as TorrentFreak points out, half the URLs listed have nothing to do with Windows 8.

Part of the reason for these mistaken infringement claims is the automated system Microsoft uses to monitor the web for infringement and send notices to sites like Google as well as the party allegedly responsible for violating the copyright. Clearly, Microsoft has a flawed process.

When Google deems a URL in violation of a copyright, it removes it from search results and replaces it with a message explaining why it’s been taken down as well as documentation of the takedown notice. Those URLs get removed from results until the original website owner disputes them. Some call this a passive form of censorship, even though it’s somewhat easy to restore wrongly removed results.

Microsoft has a history of sending out a large number copyright infringement notices. In fact, the most recent Google Transparency Report shows Microsoft as the top submitter of takedown requests. Microsoft might want to revise its process. Otherwise, it could help make a case for new laws that punish companies that wrongly send out takedown notices.

So, someone’s ripped off your iOS app. The icon you spent one too many hours working on is showing up on someone else’s app, and maybe even some of your code is popping up in their app, too. Apple introduced a new tool that puts you in direct contact with those miscreants.

The new tool was first spotted by developer Brad Larson on Twitter. The feature, which can be found under “iTunes Content Dispute” is separate from all other iTunes content, which includes music and video. Offended developers can submit their contact information and an electronic complaint that goes directly to Apple’s legal team. From there, Apple says it will connect you with the “provider of the disputed app,” in the hopes that the two of you can hash it out on your own time.

It will also provide a reference number in the case you need to re-contact Apple’s legal team. That way you can also follow any communication you have with Apple’s legal team, which will be helpful should you need to go to court over the infringement.

Of course, Android is far from impervious to app-stealing. You could argue that this is because users can download apps to an Android device separate from the official Android store. Third-party markets are not as regulated and may even contribute to Android’s reputation as having more malicious apps available for download as well.

The Federal Bureau of Investigations recently took down three websites for hosting ripped-off apps. It was a noteworthy moment as this was the first time the FBI took action against mobile app copyright infringers, showing this content is actually intellectual property that must be protected.

hat tip The Next Web; Image via Meghan Kelly, Shutterstock

After being arrested this past weekend in Cambodia, The Pirate Bay cofounder Gottfrid Svartholm Warg will be deported by Cambodian officials.

“We will deport him based on our immigration law,” police spokesman Kirth Chantharith told Reuters.

Because Sweden and Cambodia have no extradition treaty, it is unclear if Warg will be deported directly back to Sweden or will end up in another country. “We just know we will deport him,” Chantharith said. “As to which country, that would be up to the Swedish side.”

It’s reasonable to assume he will quickly be sent back to Sweden to serve his time and face more than $3.5 million in damages.

As VentureBeat’s Jolie O’Dell noted this weekend, Warg (also known by online alias Anakata) has been in big legal trouble since 2006, when Swedish police first raided The Pirate Bay, a popular torrent site, for copyright violations. Warg was eventually sentenced to a 12-month prison sentence that was supposed to start in January, but he evaded the police.

While The Pirate Bay remains the target of legal action, it is still up and running.

Gottfrid Svartholm Warg photo via Nicolas Vigier/Flickr

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

Watch out, pirates sailing the mobile seas, law enforcement is paying attention to more than just illegal downloads of music and movies. The Department of Justice took down three websites yesterday that were illegally selling copyrighted Android applications.

The seized websites are applanet.net, appbucket.net, and smappzmarket.com, all of which now have a homepage that shows the DOJ seal and a notice explaining the penalties for copyright infringement. This includes up to five years in prison, a $250,000 fine, and forfeiture and restitution for first offenders. It’s an important step for the United States’ effort against copyright infringement because while software — along with entertainment — has long been protected under U.S. law, mobile apps are now being seriously protected as well.

According to the DOJ’s official statement, the FBI downloaded thousands of these apps “without permission from the software developers” while gathering evidence. The FBI also enlisted the help of international law enforcement partners — since many of the servers were overseas — and had them download the apps as well.

“Criminal copyright laws apply to apps for cellphones and tablets, just as they do to other software, music, and writings,” said U.S. Attorney Sally Quillian Yates in a statement, “We will continue to seize and shut down websites that market pirated apps, and to pursue those responsible for criminal charges if appropriate.”

Unlike Apple, which requires that all apps downloaded to the iPhone and iPad go through its App Store (and its security measures) first, Google is not as tight on the rules. Instead, it lets Android users download apps from anywhere, including third-party marketplaces such as GetJar, which is how pirates can profit from selling illegally acquired apps.

Overall, the DOJ used nine search warrants in the U.S. and worked with attorneys in Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, Michigan, Indiana, Rhode Island, and Texas.

hat tip Forbes; Android pirate image via ToastyKen/Flickr

Legally troubled Megaupload creator Kim Dotcom will launch his new music-focused venture, Megabox, this year, he said early Monday morning on Twitter.

Dotcom has been vigorously fighting government charges related to copyright infringement charges since January. His incredibly popular file-sharing service Megaupload was shut down by U.S. and New Zealand authorities as part of a massive sting operation against sites that allegedly enabled copyright infringement. A recent video shows the absurdly forceful raid performed on Dotcom’s house as part of the sting.

Despite being in the middle of a legal case that could end up with Dotcom in prison, he is still working hard to open a new disruptive web-based music service. Megabox will “allow artists to sell their creations direct to consumers, allowing artists to keep 90% of earnings,” Dotcom wrote in a December guest post to TorrentFreak. You can see a photo teaser of the service above.

On top of launching a new music service, Dotcom is cooking up something else. On Twitter, he indicated that something people have been waiting for is coming and will be “better” and “faster”. He writes:

I know what you are all waiting for. It’s coming. This year. Promise. Bigger. Better. Faster. 100% Safe & Unstoppable.

The tweet suggests Megaupload will relaunch this year as well, but we’ve got no details except for the tweet. No doubt the consistently vocal Dotcom will let the world know when his service hits the web.

Megabox photo: Kim Dotcom/Instagram

When police raided Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom’s home in January, there were questions as to why one man charged for copyright infringement warranted so much force. Now we have video of the absurd raid featuring a helicopter, dogs, and semiautomatic rifles.

Dotcom has become a bit of an Internet folk hero because of his tribulations and is vigorously fighting government charges related to copyright. His file-sharing service Megaupload was shut down in January by U.S. and New Zealand authorities as part of a massive sting operation against sites that allegedly enabled copyright infringement.

Besides showing the unnecessary force used on Dotcom and his property, the video features Dotcom testifying about the raid. He says the FBI had already locked down servers related to the Megaupload charges before the raid, so there was no risk of Dotcom deleting evidence that it would later use in court.

The raid was later ruled partially illegal, but New Zealand authorities are trying to overturn that ruling.

Embedding a video that infringes copyright doesn’t violate the law, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

With more scrutiny on copyright violators than ever before, it’s important to know where you stand when it comes to things like embedding a questionable video into a website or sharing a video with friends on social media.

In the ruling, the 7th Circuit sided with video bookmarking site myVidster, which was sued by video production company Flava Works in 2010. Flava Works successfully argued that the site was guilty of infringement and got an injunction against the site in 2011. But now that decision has been thrown out. Judge Richard Posner wrote:

myVidster is giving web surfers addresses where they can find entertainment. By listing plays and giving the name and address of the theaters where they are being performed, the New Yorker is not performing them. It is not “transmitting or communicating” them… myVidster doesn’t touch the data stream, which flows directly from one computer to another, neither being owned or operated by myVidster.

While the site is in-the-clear on charges surrounding the embedding of infringing videos, the judge still said myVidster was potentially infringing because it let paying members store copies of videos on its own servers.

Finally, the decision had some good news for Internet video-watchers as well. The judge said that watching a stream of an infringing video itself is not copyright infringement.

Via GigaOM

Photo credit: zimmytws/Shutterstock

Kim Dotcom, whose file-hosting service Megaupload was shut down by the New Zealand and U.S. governments for copyright infringement at the beginning of the year, has had plenty to say about the case until now. But as he awaits news about extradition to the U.S. from New Zealand, he’s become unusually quiet.

I’m wondering if his silence is due to the fact that the judge who was overseeing his extradition case to the U.S. has stepped down — presumably making Dotcom’s future a bit more tremulous.

The New Zealand Herald is reporting that Judge David Harvey, who was overseeing the extradition case, has removed himself after voicing his opinions on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade agreement that could be expanded to make circumventing a DVD’s region code illegal. And for those of you who don’t know what region codes are, they are codes that allow certain DVDs to work only within certain countries to limit piracy.

Harvey, who previously looked favorably on Dotcom, referred to the U.S. as the enemy for its part in upholding silly matters of copyright law internationally. In this instance, it had to do with DVD region codes, but obviously those comments could paint him as biased in the case, which is why he decided to step down.

“Under TPP and the American Digital Millennium copyright provisions you will not be able to do that, that will be prohibited… if you do you will be a criminal – that’s what will happen,” Harvey said, adding, “We have met the enemy and he is [the] U.S.”

Harvey was previously responsible for reinstating Dotcom’s Internet access based on good behavior. He also allowed him to visit a recording studio to finish his politically charged hip-hop album, as VentureBeat previously reported back in April.

Photo illustration: Jolie O’Dell/VentureBeat

What happens when people who protest about copyright law are silenced by copyright infringement claims? YouTube rapper and commentator Dan Bull believes this has happened to him, so he’s taken to YouTube to document his experience.

The case begins with rapper Lord Finesse suing Mac Miller for $10 million for using the beat from “Hip 2 Da Game” without permission on a mixtape track. Bull, a rapper in his own right, created a YouTube video to call Finesse a hypocrite because Finesse’s song samples jazz musician Oscar Peterson. Bull’s video also uses the beat from Finesse’s “Hip 2 Da Game,” but he claimed he could use it under “fair use” because it is acting as commentary or parody. “Fair use” is what allows you to watch those endless “Call Me Maybe” parodies or lets sites like VentureBeat post small amounts of copyrighted works without asking permission.

But YouTube has taken down the video Bull uploaded because Lord Finesse claimed copyright infringement on it. (Watch the re-uploaded video here.) Bull’s video views and all the comments he received are gone now, and he doesn’t want to take the case to court because it could be costly. “Copyright law is being used to silence criticism of copyright law,” Bull says in the video.

So to help explain just what happened and why he’s upset with what Finesse is doing, Bull created an eight-minute video that helps show the alleged hypocrisy and act as a warning to others about how fair use may not protect your original videos from being taken down by copyright claims.

“I have fought ACTA, SOPA, DEA and various other forms of censorship in the name of copyright,” Bull writes in the video description. “I will not be silenced by this kind of abuse of the copyright system. The DMCA is not supposed to be used in this way.”

Check out Bull’s informative, eye-opening video below:

A New Zealand judge has pushed back the extradition of Megaupload kingpin Kim Dotcom to March 2013, a move that will give him more time to prepare for an eventual trial in the U.S.

Dotcom’s contentious extradition hearing was scheduled for Aug. 6, but several legal issues gave New Zealand pause. Essentially, aspects of the police raid on Dotcom’s home were illegal, as was cloning the hard drives of Dotcom’s 135 computers.

Dotcom has become a bit of an Internet folk hero as of late and now is acting as a larger-than-life figure fighting overreaching government charges related to copyright. His file-sharing service Megaupload was shut down in January by U.S. and New Zealand authorities as part of a massive sting operation against sites that enabled copyright infringement. Dotcom has now even attracted the support of Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, who says the case against Dotcom is “weak.”

The upcoming extradition hearing in August was looking like a tough battle for Dotcom, as U.S. authorities wanted to give him just a single 40-page document out of 22 million e-mails to prepare for his hearing. The U.S. argued that Dotcom did not need to see all the evidence against him before he faced trial in U.S. courts.

Now Dotcom will have more time to prepare for his extradition hearing in 2013, and perhaps he’ll be able to find a way to see all the evidence against him before that time.

U.S. authorities want to give alleged Megaupload kingpin Kim Dotcom access to just a single 40-page document out of 22 million e-mails before his extradition hearing, according to Stuff.co.nz.

Dotcom has become a bit of an Internet folk hero as of late and now is acting as a larger-than-life figure fighting overreaching government charges. His file-sharing service Megaupload was shut down in January by U.S. and New Zealand authorities as part of a massive sting operation against sites that enabled copyright infringement. The two governments had Dotcom arrested, seized his assets (illegally, according to a judge), and filed an extradition request to have him sent to the U.S. from New Zealand. Since that time, he has attracted the support of Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, who says the case against Dotcom is “weak.”

Now the FBI does not want to give Dotcom access to its large stores of evidence before his Aug. 6 extradition hearing. Instead, it wants to provide him and his team with a 40-page document that summarizes 22 million e-mails that the U.S. is using as evidence. The U.S. argues that Dotcom does not need to see all the evidence against him before he faces trial in U.S. courts.

Dotcom’s legal team said disclosure of all the evidence against Dotcom is necessary to defend him during the extradition hearing. Without all the evidence, his lawyers said, they would have “their hands tied behind their backs.”

Dotcom recently blamed U.S. Vice President Joe Biden for having authorities target Megaupload. He also blames MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) president and former U.S. Senator Chris Dodd.

Next up in the case, a U.S. court will hear a motion from Dotcom’s lawyers on July 27 to dismiss all of his charges, according to New Zealand’s Times Live. We don’t expect anything to come of it.

Kim Dotcom photo illustration: Jolie O’Dell/VentureBeat

Google just put another win under its belt in the Google-Oracle patent lawsuit. The case looked to be wrapped up when a jury found Google not guilty of infringing on Oracle’s patents earlier this month.

In the first part of the trial, which focused on copyrights held by Oracle, a jury found that Google had infringed on Oracle’s structure, sequence, and organization (SSO) of its application programming interfaces (API). At the time, Judge William Alsup said he was reviewing Oracle’s claim to copyright an SSO, but requested that the jury consider it copyrighted. Now, the judge is reversing the jury’s decision saying that Oracle doesn’t have the right to copyright the SSO of an API.

In essence, letting Oracle win this one is to say that competing technologies are not allowed to come up with a similar structure to their APIs, lest they be subjected to a copyright lawsuit.

“To accept Oracle’s claim would be to allow anyone to copyright one version of code to carry out a system of commands and thereby bar all others from writing their own different versions to carry out all or part of the same commands,” said Alsup in a statement. “No holding has ever endorsed such a sweeping proposition.”

Oracle will appeal the decision and has released the following statement:

Oracle is committed to the protection of Java as both a valuable development platform and a valuable intellectual property asset. It will vigorously pursue an appeal of this decision in order to maintain that protection and to continue to support the broader Java community of over 9 million developers and countless law abiding enterprises. Google’s implementation of the accused APIs is not a free pass, since a license has always been required for an implementation of the Java Specification. And the court’s reliance on “interoperability” ignores the undisputed fact that Google deliberately eliminated interoperability between Android and all other Java platforms. Google’s implementation intentionally fragmented Java and broke the “write once, run anywhere” promise. This ruling, if permitted to stand, would undermine the protection for innovation and invention in the United States and make it far more difficult to defend intellectual property rights against companies anywhere in the world that simply takes them as their own.

via The Verge; Image photoshop by Tom Cheredar

Google is rolling out a new section of its Transparency Report today that provides detailed information about copyright infringement removal requests.

“We believe that openness is crucial for the future of the Internet. When something gets in the way of the free flow of information, we believe there should be transparency around what that block might be,” Google stated in a recent blog post announcing the new section of the report.

The company first launched the Transparency Report about two years ago, which primarily focused on the number of URL or content removal requests  — as well as requests for personal data of an individual — made by governments across the world.

The new section of the report details the companies and organizations that are asking Google to remove content or de-index a URL from search results on the basis of copyright infringement. In the past month, the report indicates that 1,246,854 URLs have been targeted for removal from over 24,000 domains. The top sites being listed are shady sounding domains, such as Filestube.com, 4shared.com, zippyshare.com, etc.

So, who exactly is requesting these removals? The report indicates that over 1,200 copyright owners have asked for removals (either directly, or from an organization representing them). Here’s he shocking part though.

While companies/organizations like NBCUniversal, Lionsgate, the RIAA, and BPI (the British version of RIAA) are all at the top of the list for copyright infringement URL takedown requests, none of them come close to the top company — Microsoft, with a total of 552,252 requests.

Google also says the number of requests has been increasing rapidly, and that its not unusual for the company to receive more than 250,000 requests each week. That’s more than what copyright owners asked it to remove in all of 2009.

“Fighting online piracy is very important, and we don’t want our search results to direct people to materials that violate copyright laws. So we’ve always responded to copyright removal requests that meet the standards set out in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA),” Google states. “At the same time, we want to be transparent about the process so that users and researchers alike understand what kinds of materials have been removed from our search results and why.”

The company said it will eventually provide information about content removal requests, such as those made through its video site YouTube.

In terms of how Google goes about these copyright infringement requests is pretty reasonable at least on YouTube. Once contacted by a copyright holder, it removes the content in question and contacts the user responsible. That user can then appeal the infringement claim, and if Google hasn’t heard back from the copyright holder after a two weeks, its restored.

With its search results, it’s not as easy, but Google said it’s working hard to better identify the legitimate requests and discard all the others.

Copyright stamp photo via filmfoto /Shutterstock

Of all the overly oppressive music industry groups in the world, German royalty collections body GEMA definitely ranks near the top — especially after a recent court case the group won against Google’s YouTube.

GEMA, which represents over 60,000 German writers and musicians, brought a copyright infringement lawsuit against YouTube in 2010 due to 12 music videos that were uploaded to the site without permission. The German court ruled today that YouTube didn’t do nearly enough to prevent its users from posting that content.

As such, YouTube could get slapped with a huge bill to pay for all the music royalties from the 12 videos in question, as well as other videos in the future. The court also ruled that YouTube must implement more stringent filters for video uploads — this is on top of YouTube’s current filtering technology, which seems to do fine here in the U.S.

Forcing YouTube to pay royalties on music that its users uploaded actually gives the copyright holders an incentive to have their music illegally placed online. In the U.S., this type of situation is avoided with the DMCA, which states that the site in question of violating a copyright must remove the material within a reasonable amount of time after being alerted to it.

It’s likely that Google will appeal the German court’s decision. We’re reaching out to the company for further comment, and will update the post with any new information.

Photo via korosirego/Flickr; Via ZDnet

Recently defunct file-hosting service Megaupload has decided not to pursue further legal action against Universal Music Group.

UMG first accused the company’s “Mega Video” music video of copyright infringement back in January, sent out Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notices to several sites, including YouTube, Vimeo, and even TWiT’s Tech News Today. The Mega Video featured several popular hip-hop and pop stars performing a song that promoted the company’s file hosting service. The video included Kanye West, Will.i.am, Kim Kardashian, Serena Williams, Snoop Dogg, Macy Gray, and others.

In response, Megaupload filed a counter suit, which it’s now dropping, according to a TorrentFreak report. “The sham takedown notice case will be dismissed without prejudice,” Megaupload attorney Ira Rothken said. “Megaupload will be permitted to refile the case if it chooses to do so.”

UMG never actually established how the Mega Video was infringing on its copyright. Megaupload originally wanted to exploit that fact as proof that UMG was abusing its power to send out DMCA notices. Had it actually gone to trial, the counter suit could have established important precedents for DMCA abuse by copyright holders.

Rothken said the UMG case was dropped so that Megaupload can focus on much more severe legal woes. The company’s main priority going forward is to fight allegations by U.S. authorities that its file hosting service was knowingly being used as a safe haven for people committing acts of piracy.

What will happen to file-sharing company Megaupload’s $42 million in seized assets? Founder Kim Dotcom is scraping by on a monthly stipend of $48,500 (taken from the interest on Dotcom’s $10 million in New Zealand government bonds) but the rest of the company’s warchest is a tempting target for companies that can prove copyright infringement.

Enter Florida-based entertainment production company ValCom. ValCom announced Friday it is suing Megaupload for millions in damages for 6,000 of its audio and video titles that were allegedly pirated on Megaupload.com. The public company (VLCO, currently trading at $0.04 a share) is asking for between $750 and $150,000 per title in back-due royalties and damages. If successful, it could rake in anywhere from $4.5 million all the way up to $90 million in the suit.

“These are revenues that belong to ValCom, and we’re securing them for the benefit of the company and to increase value for our shareholders,” ValCom president Vince Vellardita said in a statement.

ValCom mostly rents studios and equipment to entertainment companies such as CBS and Disney, but it also has its own library of titles, including fitness video “In the House with Shari Layne” and 1970s children’s show “The New Zoo Review” (pictured above).

Megaupload, the popular file-hosting site that the U.S. government shut down in mid-January, may have had many users in the U.S. government, according to new interview with founder Kim Dotcom.

Dotcom (pictured) and several other Megaupload employees were named in a 72-page indictment issued in January. It alleges that Dotcom and his colleagues facilitated $500 million in damages to copyright owners.

In a new interview with TorrentFreak, Dotcom said that Megaupload has been “negotiating” with the Department of Justice to get back files that were lost when Megaupload was shut down. At the time of the shut down, many users were vocally upset they lost legal files that were hosted on Megaupload.

While Dotcom talked about helping users get their files back, he also let slip another revealing detail about Megaupload that could make the U.S. government look bad: “Guess what – we found a large number of Mega accounts from US Government officials including the Department of Justice and the US Senate,” Dotcom said.

If Dotcom’s statement holds true, it will likely strengthen Megaupload’s position in court. If the files U.S. employees were sharing were legal, Megaupload can use them as an example to show how it is a legitimate business. Alternately, if the files government employees were sharing were illegal, Megaupload can use them to show how it had no control over what users were doing and that even the government had copyright violators.

The non-profit Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) offered help to users get back files in early February, but Megaupload customers still have no simple way to reclaim their their files. Megaupload users who are still without access to important files (including government employees!) can e-mail the EFF at megauploadmissing@eff.org.

Dotcom is now out on bail in New Zealand, but the U.S. government has filed extradition papers to send him to the U.S. for trial. Dotcom maintains that he is innocent of all charges.

As the third most popular source of content on digital pin-board site Pinterest, Flickr and its photographers are subject to frequent acts of copyright infringement. But a site-wide update to Flickr promises to better protect members and their copyrighted works.

The Yahoo-owned photo-sharing site has just added Pinterest’s newly introduced do-not-pin code to Flickr pages with copyrighted or protected images.

“Flickr has implemented the tag and it appears on all non-public/non-safe pages, as well as when a member has disabled sharing of their Flickr content,” a Flickr representative confirmed to VentureBeat Friday. “This means only content that is ‘safe,’ ‘public’ and has the sharing button enabled can be pinned to Pinterest.”

Pinterest, as a refresher, is the digital pin-board site that encourages members to “pin,” via bookmarklet, the products, recipes, clothes, photos, and other items they love to collections called boards. The private beta site has grown into one of the most-trafficked social networks online.

The site has also given birth to the most inherently viral variant of the status update yet. This new breed of update, however, often promotes piracy as pins including copyrighted works spread from person to person.

To protect itself from copyright lawsuits, and appease disgruntled photographers and publishers, the young social media company introduced a snippet of code Monday that website owners can now add to their sites to prevent unwanted pinning. If a person on Pinterest attempts to share something from a site with that code in place, she will see a message that reads: “This site doesn’t allow pinning to Pinterest. Please contact the owner with any questions. Thanks for visiting!”

Flickr can’t prevent all acts of photo piracy just by enabling the code — determined sharers will just work around the inconvenience and manually download and post images — but the act signals the site is proactively looking out for its photographers.

Dotcom, who lived an incredibly lavish life with profits from the file-sharing service, was taken into custody January 20 on charges of copyright infringement and money laundering. He was originally denied bail by New Zealand Judge David McNaughton, who cited potentially undiscovered assets that may aid Dotcom in an escape. Since that time, his house, money and other goods, such as a Rolls Royce and a numerous amount of Mercedes-Benz cars, have been seized.

U.S. government prosecutor Anne Toohey argued against Dotcom’s bail, citing his wealth and potentially hidden assets, according to the New Zealand Herald. But after the seizures, a judge ruled there was no evidence to support the claim and released him. After the seizure of his house, Dotcom’s children and pregnant wife were allowed to stay.

Megaupload, which is now shut down, enabled people to upload, store, and share files on the Internet. The site’s executives are charged with financially encouraging people to upload pirated content. They are also charged with not issuing citations to copyright offenders for the Megaupload site, or any of its subsidiaries such as Megavideo, Megaporn, and Megastuff. The indictment by the U.S. government calls the case a “Mega Conspiracy.”

via New Zealand Herald

By way of the “pin,” accidental thieves have exchanged copyrighted content on digital pin-board site Pinterest. To thwart any lawsuits in the making, the much talked-about startup is giving disgruntled site-owners a way to stop piracy before it starts by blocking their images from showing up on Pinterest.

Pinterest is the up-and-coming social site that encourages members to “pin,” via bookmarklet, items they love to collections called boards. In about a year’s time, the site has grown into one of the most-trafficked social networks.

The acts of “pinning” and “repinning” (re-sharing a pin created by another user) have come under fire, especially in photographer circles, as tools for copyright infringement. Members can easily grab copyrighted works from photo-sharing or media sites and clip them to their boards. Pinned images often include attribution, but sources later get lost in the shuffle, and some members go on to use images on their blogs or websites. Plus, considering that Google is the second most popular source of pins, a sizable percentage images are likely misattributed.

Now, Pinterest is providing website owners a simple snippet of code, located in the updated help section of the site, to help them nip unwanted sharing in the bud.

“We care about respecting the rights of copyright holders. We work hard to follow the DMCA procedure for acting quickly when we receive notices of claimed copyright infringement,” co-founder Ben Silbermann wrote in a blog post Wednesday. “We understand and respect that sometimes site owners do not want any of their material pinned.”

The new code, when added to the header of any page, will prevent a person of Pinterest from sharing content from that page. If someone attempts to pin something from a site with that code in place, she will see a message that reads: “This site doesn’t allow pinning to Pinterest. Please contact the owner with any questions. Thanks for visiting!”

The code should help the anti-Pinterest photographers and publishers of the world keep some of their copyrighted works off of the site, though it certainly won’t prevent the motivated sharer from downloading and re-uploading materials to Pinterest themselves.

Perhaps more importantly, though, the proactive measure could help Pinterest defend itself from copyright litigation. At the very least, the young company can now argue that it does not actively enable or encourage infringement.

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

A five year-old legal battle between Viacom and Google-owned YouTube over copyrighted content continues to clog up the U.S. court system because Viacom, parent company of Paramount Pictures and MTV, believes there’s an important principle at stake, president and CEO Philippe Dauman said Tuesday.

Dauman, in an interview at the D: Dive Into Media event, defended his company’s ongoing litigation against YouTube, the purveyor of user-generated content, despite a 2010 federal ruling establishing that the video-sharing site is protected under the “safe harbor” provision of the U.S. copyright law, and is ultimately protected from liability so long as it removes infringing content at the request of rights holders.

“The U.S. justice system works in a slow and deliberate way,” Dauman said somewhat facetiously.

Viacom first brought suit again YouTube in 2007 for $1 billion in damages over the unauthorized use of Viacom content, inducing the use of clips from “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report,” between 2005 and 2008. The case was dismissed in June of 2010, in what was deemed a landmark victory for YouTube. But the decision didn’t sit well with Viacom, and the company sought to resuscitate the suit in October 2011.

Dauman referred to the status quo of needing to report infringed content as a “whack-a-mole system,” and argued for a more seamless technology solution that ensures copyright content is not infringed upon in the first place. He said Viacom is still fighting Google (a company Dauman referred to as “great”) out of principle, and is hopeful for a decision to a single legal issue that he believes will establish an important precedent for the entire industry.

The Viacom president, who fielded a variety of questions from interviewer Peter Kafka, also expressed his ongoing support for both the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA). There was a lot of rhetoric and misinformation around SOPA and PIPA, Dauman lamented, that amounted to a “religious dogma” and created a “mob mentality.”

Ultimately, Daumen believes that PIPA, which would have been the dominant bill should it have passed, would have emerged as a very “responsible” bill.

“There are two great innovative industries where there are world leaders … that’s the content industry and broadly speaking the Internet industry,” Dauman said. The industries are symbiotic, he said, and should combine forces and create innovation. “We should be working together.”

Image via AllThingsD

Dotcom (pictured) and several other Megaupload employees were named in a 72-page indictment issued last Thursday by the Department of Justice. The indictment against Megaupload alleges it is connected to a vast criminal enterprise that has caused more than $500 million in harm to copyright owners. If convicted, the company and its executives could serve many years in prison and forfeit $175 million in assets, including 15 Mercedes, a Maserati, a Lamborghini and a Rolls-Royce.

New Zealand Judge David McNaughton denied bail to Dotcom, saying he is flight risk. “With sufficient determination and financial resources, flight risk remains a real and significant possibility which I cannot discount and bail is declined,” Judge David McNaughton said, according to Reuters.

Dotcom has said he is innocent of charges and is not a flight risk because the government has seized his assets and because his wife is pregnant with twins. Dotcom will remain in custody until Feb. 22, when he will face an extadition hearing that could bring him to the United States for trial.

Megaupload lawyer Ira Rothken told VentureBeat this past Friday that the company would “be assembling a worldwide team of top-notch lawyers, intellectual property lawyers and tech lawyers to defend this. There’s a good chance Megaupload will prevail in this case.” Since then however, one of MegaUpload’s high-profile lawyers, Robert Bennett, has withdrawn, citing conflict of interest.

As more details come to light in the much-publicized Megaupload case, other file-sharing sites around the web are shutting their doors in fear that they could be targeted next by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Over the weekend, popular Megaupload alternatives FileSonic and FileServe completely turned off the ability to share files with other people. And another well-trafficked site, Uploaded.to, has blocked all U.S.-based IP addresses in fear of getting in serious trouble with the U.S. government.

Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom and several other Megaupload employees were arrested after being named in a 72-page indictment issued Thursday by the DOJ. The indictment alleges Megaupload is connected to a vast criminal enterprise and has caused more than $500 million in harm to copyright owners. If convicted, the company’s executives could serve many years in prison.

Even with trouble brewing, many sites that emulate Megaupload’s basic capabilities still work just fine. The CEO of popular file-sharing site MediaFire told me Sunday the company isn’t too concerned about government scrutiny because it is a legitimate business and doesn’t incentivize piracy like Megaupload did. That said, just because a company is confident about its legitimacy and employees don’t absurdly flaunt their wealth, doesn’t guarantee the government won’t investigate it.

“At this point, it’s hard to tell how far you can extrapolate, but I don’t think anyone should rest easy,” said Felix Wu, assistant law professor at Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University. “The Megaupload case will set precedent for these types of businesses and how liable they are.”

With that in mind, we’ve compiled a list of 15 file-sharing sites still up and running that the government could potentially target next (in alphabetical order). Take a look:

1. BayFiles

Hong Kong-based BayFiles may be one of the file-sharing sites that attracts government scrutiny based on pedigree alone. The site was created by two of the founders of notorious torrent website The Pirate Bay, which said two weeks ago it would gradually stop serving torrent files because of sustained heat. BayFiles’ terms of service say content that “violates third-party copyrights” is not permitted to be uploaded, but the site still makes it effortless to share copyrighted material with others.

2. DepositFiles

Cyprus-based DepositFiles has a bare bones design, but the site has pretty incredible sharing capabilities available for free. You can upload and share files up to 300MB in size without registration, and if you do register, you can upload up to 2GB files for free. The site also offers a Gold membership that allows you download with multiple connections, no waiting time for downloads and no advertising. Having people pay for higher quality download connections to large files is one of the things that got Megaupload in trouble.

3. Divx Stage

Divx Stage is one of the shadiest looking sites on this list, without question. The site blatantly advertises it will pay $10 for each 1000 full-movie streams for movies uploaded on the site. The site lets you upload up to 1GB files and features tons of TV shows and movies to watch for free. As of Monday, some shows on the first page of the site include the Mark Wahlberg film “Contraband” and the latest episode of ABC’s “Once Upon a Time.”

4. HulkShare

HulkShare is a strange beast of a file-sharing service that walks the line between promoting artists and enabling those to spread copyrighted music illegally. The site makes it extremely easy to upload song files and let other people listen to those files using its embeddable HulkShare Player. The site’s terms of service states copyrighted material is “strictly prohibited,” but in line with DMCA, artists must let the site know if a file is there without authorization to get it taken down.

5. MediaFire

Texas-based MediaFire lets you upload and easily share up to 200MB files without registration. While I believe MediaFire makes a convincing case that it is a legitimate company targeting professionals, the site has a huge amount of users who use the service for spreading copyrighted files, especially music. If you do a Google search for a song name, an artist name, and “MediaFire,” for example, it will likely bring you to a copy of the file which can easily be downloaded from a MediaFire page. CEO Derek Labian told us the fault belongs to Google for indexing shared MediaFire pages, and that Google should look into the problem.

6. MegaShares

It probably won’t help MegaShares that the word “Mega” is in its name, but it might have other things to worry about. The site lets users upload up to 10GB files and it pays users for the amount of downloads they bring to the site. Every “unique premium download with a minimum 5MB file size” earns you a “1 cache point” and when you reach certain numbers of points, you get cash.

7. NovaMov

NovaMov is quite similar to the Divx Stage site, and it’s just as shady. It rewards people for uploading movies up to 2GB in size and keeps a searchable directory of streaming movies infringing on copyrights. Users who upload files are paid $10 for each 1000 full video streams.

8. OvFile

On the surface, OvFile is a lot less nefarious looking than Divx Stage and NovaMov. But because it allows you to easily upload up to 1GB movies and it’s plenty easy to find OvFile links through Google searches, it’s still just as capable of infringement as those other sites.

9. PutLocker

MediaFire CEO Labian told me PutLocker was one of the biggest sites on the web giving file-sharing sites a bad name. On the site, you can upload and share files up to 1GB for free and there’s no time limit on streaming shared videos. In a move likely inspired by Megaupload’s troubles, PutLocker will be ending its affiliate program, which gives users cash for streams, on Feb. 1. That’s at least a start, but the site will still almost certainly still be a place for sharing and watching copyrighted movies without authorization.

10. RapidShare

Switzerland-based RapidShare is one of the oldest file-sharing sites and currently has a global traffic rank of 211 on Alexa. The site has had numerous legal issues, but it still operates and serves millions of users daily who share files. RapidShare has no limits on upload or download sizes, but it does make you wait to download files if you are not a premium user. If you are premium user, you can download simultaneous large files with a waiting period.

11. SockShare

SockShare is one of many sites where you can share streaming videos links. There is a 1GB cap on what unpaid users can upload and a 5GB cap on what premium users can upload. It is troublingly easy to Google a video name and “SockShare” to find a watchable stream on the site. However, just like PutLocker, SockShare will be ending its affiliate program, which gives users cash for video streams, on Feb 1.

12. UploadHere

On UploadHere, you can upload files up to 2GB but you must be a premium member on the site to download files over 1GB in size. That sort of business model clearly leads to the site profiting on the downloads of large, mostly copyrighted files. The site charges $8 a month for premium memberships and slightly less per month if you pay for multiple months in bulk.

13. UploadKing

UploadKing offers people almost exactly the same service as UploadHere, except it costs a bit less for premium downloading status. Free users are encouraged to upgrade to premium because it limits free users to download files under 1GB in size and does not let you download several files simultaneously.

14. WUpload

Hong Kong-based WUpload will likely be one of the most-used file-sharing sites now that Megaupload has been taken down. The site allows users to upload and download files up to 2GB for free. It encourages users to sign up for premium accounts, which enable simulatenous large downloads, no delays on downloads, and downloads that do not time out.

15. ZShare

Hong Kong-based ZShare is another bare bones sharing site, but unlike many others it is completely free and ad-supported. It allows uploads and downloads up to 100MB. ZShare does not allow users to search directly on the site for files but it is easy to Google a file name and “ZShare” to find shared pages.

Cover photo via Shutterstock

After being arrested and charged with running a huge online piracy ring, larger-than-life founder of file-sharing site Megaupload Kim Dotcom said Monday in a bail hearing that he was innocent of all charges.

Dotcom (pictured) and several other Megaupload employees were named in a 72-page indictment issued Thursday by the Department of Justice. The indictment against Megaupload alleges that it is connected to a vast criminal enterprise has caused more than $500 million in harm to copyright owners. If convicted, the company and its executives could serve many years in prison and forfeit $175 million in assets, including 15 Mercedes, a Maserati, a Lamborghini and a Rolls-Royce.

Dotcom faces extradition to the U.S., but for now he is being set up for trial in a New Zealand court, as documented by Reuters. The judge on the case, David McNaughton, listened to arguments today on whether Dotcom should be allowed to post bail. Lawyer Anne Toohey argued on behalf of the United States and told the court that Dotcom was a flight risk and could re-start Megaupload if freed.

Megaupload defense lawyer Paul Davison argued that Dotcom isn’t a flight risk because the government has seized his assets and because his wife is pregnant with twins. He also said Dotcom was innocent and denied the existence of a “mega conspiracy.”

“He is not the sort of person who will pass unnoticed through our customs and immigration lines and controls,” said Davison of the 6-foot-6-inch, 285-pound Dotcom.

The judge decided the case was too complex for an immediate ruling on bail, but said he would issue a decision no later than Wednesday.

One setback from Megaupload appears to be that U.S.-based lawyer Robert Bennett, who planned to defend Megaupload, has withdrawn from the case because his law firm, Hogan Lovells, had a conflict of interest.

Megaupload lawyer Ira Rothken told VentureBeat on Friday that the company would “be assembling a worldwide team of top-notch lawyers, intellectual property lawyers and tech lawyers to defend this. There’s a good chance Megaupload will prevail in this case.”

Messages left with Rothken on Monday were not immediately returned.

For entertainment studios around the world, Kim Dotcom probably looks a lot like King Henry VIII. To them he is rich, rotund, and chopping their businesses off at the head.

Two of those attributes, at least, are factually true. The third is in legal dispute.

Kim Dotcom, the founder of recently indicted file sharing company Megaupload, was born Kim Schmitz. A German native who legally changed his surname to Dotcom ten years ago, he has a speckled past. This includes accusations of credit card fraud and criminal hacking, as well as a confession of embezzlement. Now Kim lives in a New Zealand mansion allegedly worth $30 million and owns high-end vehicles like a Rolls-Royce, a Maserati, and a Lamborghini.

It’s all legitimately-acquired wealth, according to Megaupload spokesperson Bonnie Lam.

In accordance with German’s “clean-slate” law, Dotcom’s record has been wiped clean of his previous offenses, and he has paid his due after his convictions, Lam said.

“He has matured, learned from his past mistakes and is a successful businessman,” Lam told Cnet. “Kim is one of many shareholders at Mega and not involved in most day-to-day business decisions.”

He is, nevertheless, a colorful character. Dotcom co-produced and appears in a popular promotional video for Megaupload that came out in December, 2011 (that’s him in the screen shot above). The video, which included such popular music stars as Macy Gray, Will.i.am, Kanye West, Kim Kardashian, Serena Williams, Snoop Dogg and a host of others, was targeted by Universal Music Group for unspecified reasons, briefly removed from YouTube, and then reinstated to the popular video-sharing site shortly afterward. Megaupload filed its own suit against Universal immediately after the incident. The video has now been seen almost 12 million times.

Dotcom, who is married and a father of three, was charged this week with five counts of copyright infringement, along with money laundering. He was arrested at his own birthday party on Thursday, along with other employees of Megaupload and its various properties, including Megaporn, Megavideo, Megaclick, and Megarotic. When the police came calling, he barricaded himself inside the mansion’s safe room with what appeared to be a sawed-off shotgun.

Megaupload is the company’s flagship site, founded in 2005. It lets people upload, store and transfer files around the globe, a service that can be used for legitimate purposes (transferring a large data file to a business associate, for instance) but which, the FBI alleges, is also used for distributing copyrighted video and audio. The company’s headquarters are said to be in Hong Kong, though its servers exist in other countries as well. The US FBI took action after discovering servers in Virgina holding unlicensed copyrighted material. Indeed, the US calling this a “Mega Conspiracy.”

The indictment served yesterday listed assets owned by Dotcom and his fellow employees, which tallied to around $175,000,000. Expensive vehicles, artwork, electronics, and a laundry list of bank accounts were named.

On Friday, police in New Zealand raided Dotcom’s home and seized many of these assets, including a Rolls Royce, numerous Mercedes-Benz cars, cash and allegedly guns. Dotcom is known for enjoying his fast cars and attending the Gumball 3000, an automobile “rally” that has drawn celebrities such as Snoop Dogg, Johnny Knoxville and others.

In response, the loose hacker collective known as Anonymous retaliated by taking down the Department of Justice and FBI websites with a denial-of-service attack.

Dotcom has been in trouble with the law for money before. In 2001, the Megaupload founder pocketed 1.5 million euros after promising to invest 50 million euros into failing company LetsBuyIt.com. He pulled the fraud off by purchasing 375,000 euros worth of stock in the company, made his investment announcement, and watched the stock price soar. After the stock had climbed a considerable amount, Dotcom cut and ran, having never possessed enough money to make the 50 million euro investment in the first place. In 2003, Dotcom admitted to embezzlement and was flown from Thailand to Germany for the trial.

According to New Zealand-based website 3 News, New Zealand’s government initially denied Dotcom’s application residency when he failed a “good character” test. However, he then donated to the Christchurch Earthquake Fund and invested $10 million in government bonds, and his application was subsequently approved.

Now Dotcom is facing even more financial charges. He and his alleged co-conspirators are accused of paying third parties to upload copyrighted material.

Dotcom remains positive, however. When faced with three of his coworkers before the press in a New Zealand court room, he invited pictures and video. When a lawyer asked the press to stop, Kim Dotcom interjected with, “We have nothing to hide.”

via Cnet, Washington Post, Images via RT/YouTube

YouTube has purchased music royalty processing startup RightsFlow for an undisclosed sum, the companies announced Friday. Another day, another acquisition for YouTube parent company Google, right? Not so fast, this deal has big implications and could make YouTube a much more music-friendly place.

RightsFlow was founded in 2007 and operates a copyright compliance system that manages a database of more than 30 million song licenses. Think of the company as a content licenser (and digital debt collector) that ensures publishers, record labels, artists and songwriters get royalty fees whenever their copyrighted tracks are used.

“By combining RightsFlow’s expertise and technology with YouTube’s platform, we hope to more rapidly and efficiently license music on YouTube, meaning more music for you all to enjoy, and more money for the talented people producing the music,” YouTube product manager David King said in blog post on the acquisition.

The popular video streaming site is not exactly known for its copyright-obeying user base. Earlier this year, it instituted a new program called YouTube Copyright School to slightly admonish and better educate members on proper copyright code-of-conduct.

Ideally, today’s news will mean that more copyrighted music would become YouTube-friendly, which could lead to fewer video take-downs and less user-admonishing. One can only hope.

YouTube was previously a client of RightsFlow, but as the company’s new owner, it remains to be seen how this deal will affect other RightsFlow clients, which include Rhapsody, Zynga and Clear Channel.

Only once YouTube fell into the hands of Google for close to $1.8 billion in 2006 did Viacom turn around and take serious action. But the relationship remained complicated. Even during the acquisition, Viacom initially allowed its content to stay on the site. And even later, YouTube’s legal team says, Viacom’s marketing department regularly uploaded videos that its legal department simultaneously attacked the video-sharing site for hosting.

Zahavah Levine, YouTube Chief Counsel, writes:

“For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately “roughed up” the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko’s to upload clips from computers that couldn’t be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt “very strongly” that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.

Viacom’s efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.

Viacom, for its part, excerpted quotes from dozens of e-mails from YouTube co-founders Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawed Karim as evidence that the trio was aware that pirated content was responsible for as much as 80 percent of the site’s traffic.

Their brief quoted Chen as saying: ”If you remove the potential copvright infringements . . . site traffic and virality will drop to maybe 20 percent of what it is.”

Viacom says that YouTube eventually introduced a community flagging feature, so that users could tag potentially copyrighted content. But it took it down about two weeks later as part of a strategy of “willful blindness” to possible copyright infringement.

“Basically if we don’t remove them we could be held liable for being served a notice. It’s actually better if we don’t have the link there at all because then the copyright holder is responsible for serving us notice of the material and not the users,” Viacom quoted Chen as saying. The brief went on to argue that Google continued YouTube’s strategy of “willful blindness” in order to prioritize strong growth on the site.

Who scored big out of the YouTube acquisition:

A few other interesting tidbits that came out of the filings were the amount of money that Hurley, Chen and other investors made out of YouTube’s sale. (Peter Kafka over at AllThingsD first found them.)

Chad Hurley: $334 million
Steve Chen: $301 million
Jawed Karim: $66 million
Sequoia Capital: $516 million on a $9 million investment
Artis Capital: $85 million on a $3 million investment

Viacom Statement of Undisputed Facts

http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf

Viacom Summary Judgment Motion http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf