As part of the bail conditions, Dotcom must reside at his leased Coatesville, Auckland mansion. He cannot travel more than 80 kilometers, or 50 miles, from the Coatesville residence on which no helicopters are allowed. Earlier bail applications by Dotcom failed as he was thought to have access to helicopters and chartered private jet planes with which he could flee New Zealand.
Dotcom, who changed his last name to fit his outsize personality and online persona, is also banned from using the Internet.
Lawyers acting for the US government opposed the bail application, and claimed Dotcom has access to financial resources that make him a flight risk. However, Justice Dawson said in the North Shore District Court that as time had passed, authorities had not been able to show that Dotcom has further assets hidden, and the mere suspicion that he is very wealthy cannot be used against him.
Instead, Justice Dawson says Dotcom has “every reason to stay to be with his family and fight to keep his assets.” Justice Dawson also noted that while Dotcom has Finnish and German passports both those countries have treaties with the US that would allow for prosecution should he flee to either place.
A court agreed that both the streaming music service and its users infringe recording label copyrights and granted an injunction forcing an ISP to initiate a block of the service. The anti-piracy group behind the action hopes that other ISPs will now follow suit.
“Grooveshark is an illegal site, which is really big and popular. But they have a business model that is based on trickery and fraud”
“Many users believe that when they use Grooveshark payment goes back to the artists and producers. So we think it was important to close off access so the legitimate sites have a chance to recover”
No freedom of information – no freedom of innovation?
Power Ventures argued Power.com allowed users to access multiple social networking accounts from a single portal, while Facebook said it misled users into signing up for its service so that it could access their Facebook accounts and spam their friends.
Power Ventures filed a motion to dismiss the case, which was denied, and alleged that Facebook was being anti-competitive by placing restraints on its ability to manipulate users’ Facebook data even when their consent was given, but this also led nowhere.
The Court agreed with Facebook and determined that Power Ventures’ conduct violated state and federal law because their access to the site was “without permission” and that PV circumvented technical measures designed to stop such activity.
“Facebook has established a dangerous precedent for the future of users rights to own and control their data,” Power Ventures’ founder and CEO, Steve Vachani said in a statement. “We intend to aggressively continue this fight.”
“Facebook wants to prevent users from choosing follow-on innovation that it doesn’t like, so it’s asking the court to broaden computer crime laws in ways that would let it manufacture and cherry-pick lawsuits against users and competitors,” EFF Senior Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann said in a statement. “Facebook’s position would create legal uncertainty for tech start-ups everywhere, stifling innovation and competition. No one would want to challenge a behemoth like Facebook with the specter of criminal charges looming over interoperability.”
In a judgement handed down at the high court in London on Monday, Mr Justice Arnold ruled that The Pirate Bay and its users unlawfully share copyrighted music.
The Pirate Bay is one of the world’s longest-running and biggest filesharing sites. According to record labels, The Pirate Bay generated up to $3m in advertising revenue in October last year by making 4m copies of music and films available to its 30 million worldwide users. The site has 3.7 million users in the UK, according to comScore.
The high court is expected to rule in June whether the ISPs should prevent their customers from accessing The Pirate Bay.
The Dutch judge argues that a name of a foundation does not equal “personal details” as defined in the current Dutch data privacy laws. Even though the name of the foundation contains the names of the complainants and Google Maps is also displaying the address information – the location where the complainants actually live – as well as pictures of the premises.
The judge then switches to an interesting philosophy, moving away from the situation at hand by arguing that:
- names of foundations typically do not match names of the people working for it
- addresses of foundations typically do not match names of the people working for it, AND Google is not making known that the addresses of the complainants and the addresses of the foundation are one and the same
- Google has rightfully requested the address information at the Dutch Chamber of Commerce
- potential use of Google Maps by burglars is only “speculative”
One wonders how this judge would feel about any presumed link between IP addresses and personal details…
Mangham - who it is believed has Asperger’s and was said to have ‘no social life’ - claims that his work was ‘ethical hacking’ and he breached the security so that he could find vulnerabilities within the site, which the developers could then strengthen. This is someone who in previous times would have thrown everything aside to seek the source of the Nile and he would have continued until he did http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102690/Glenn-Mangham-hacked-Facebook-student-bedroom-brought-31m-empire.html
On Thursday police in Cheltenham arrested a 26-year-old man who ran TV Links, which linked to video content on other sites, and shut down its Dutch servers. Then yesterday a 24-year-old IT worker who ran members-only torrent tracker website OiNK was arrested in Middlesbrough. Its servers – also in the Netherlands – were seized. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/media/news/a78397/tv-links-oink-shut-in-download-site-raids.html
The man did not carry any identity details. Said he wasn’t allowed to carry anything with him on Sabbath. The judge appears to have acknowledged the fact that religious duties can outweigh national laws.
Bypassing security and accessing the protected internal systems he ‘hacked and hijacked’ the account of employee Stefan Parker and managed to reset his password.
Using the employee’s details he then accessed the ‘mailman server’ and the ‘phabricator server’ which contains the sites most sensitive intellectual property.
The hacker said that although he knew he was breaking the law he thought the company would be ‘grateful’ for his information based on his previous experience.
26-year-old Glenn Mangham - who it is believed has Asperger’s and was said to have ‘no social life’ - claims that his work was ‘ethical hacking’ and he breached the security so that he could find vulnerabilities within the site, which the developers could then strengthen.
He has to spend 8 months in jail now. His internet use was restricted for five years in a similar way as child porn offenders where officials can check on his usage and he cannot delete his history.
1. It must be held that the injunction imposed on the hosting service provider requiring it to install the contested filtering system would oblige it to actively monitor almost all the data relating to all of its service users in order to prevent any future infringement of intellectual-property rights. It follows that that injunction would require the hosting service provider to carry out general monitoring, something which is prohibited by Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/31 (see, by analogy, Scarlet Extended, paragraph 40).
2. In the main proceedings, the injunction requiring the installation of the contested filtering system involves monitoring all or most of the information stored by the hosting service provider concerned, in the interests of those rightholders. Moreover, that monitoring has no limitation in time, is directed at all future infringements and is intended to protect not only existing works, but also works that have not yet been created at the time when the system is introduced. Accordingly, such an injunction would result in a serious infringement of the freedom of the hosting service provider to conduct its business since it would require that hosting service provider to install a complicated, costly, permanent computer system at its own expense, which would also be contrary to the conditions laid down in Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/48, which requires that measures to ensure the respect of intellectual-property rights should not be unnecessarily complicated or costly (see, by analogy, Scarlet Extended, paragraph 48). In those circumstances, it must be held that the injunction to install the contested filtering system is to be regarded as not respecting the requirement that a fair balance be struck between, on the one hand, the protection of the intellectual-property right enjoyed by copyright holders, and, on the other hand, that of the freedom to conduct business enjoyed by operators such as hosting service providers (see, by analogy, Scarlet Extended, paragraph 49).
3. Moreover, the effects of that injunction would not be limited to the hosting service provider, as the contested filtering system may also infringe the fundamental rights of that hosting service provider’s service users, namely their right to protection of their personal data and their freedom to receive or impart information, which are rights safeguarded by Articles 8 and 11 of the Charter respectively. Indeed, the injunction requiring installation of the contested filtering system would involve the identification, systematic analysis and processing of information connected with the profiles created on the social network by its users. The information connected with those profiles is protected personal data because, in principle, it allows those users to be identified (see, by analogy, Scarlet Extended, paragraph 51).
4. Moreover, that injunction could potentially undermine freedom of information, since that system might not distinguish adequately between unlawful content and lawful content, with the result that its introduction could lead to the blocking of lawful communications. Indeed, it is not contested that the reply to the question whether a transmission is lawful also depends on the application of statutory exceptions to copyright which vary from one Member State to another. In addition, in some Member States certain works fall within the public domain or may be posted online free of charge by the authors concerned (see, by analogy, Scarlet Extended, paragraph 52). Consequently, it must be held that, in adopting the injunction requiring the hosting service provider to install the contested filtering system, the national court concerned would not be respecting the requirement that a fair balance be struck between the right to intellectual property, on the one hand, and the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the freedom to receive or impart information, on the other (see, by analogy, Scarlet Extended, paragraph 53).
In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the question referred is that Directives 2000/31, 2001/29 and 2004/48, read together and construed in the light of the requirements stemming from the protection of the applicable fundamental rights, must be interpreted as precluding an injunction made against a hosting service provider which requires it to install the contested filtering system.
The Court ruled that hosting sites can’t filter copyrighted content as that would violate the privacy of users and hinder freedom of information.
The unprecedented decision has major implications for all services in Europe that host user uploaded content, not least among cyberlockers such as RapidShare. Also, the verdict would prevent copyright holders ordering BitTorrent sites to filter uploaded files, something that isoHunt already does based on a US injunction.
Rick Falkvinge, founder of the first Pirate Party in Sweden, is happy that the EU Court of Justice has placed the rights of people above those of corporations.
“I think it is quite remarkable, and very promising, that Europe’s highest court says outright that the copyright monopoly and people’s right to privacy of correspondence cannot be protected at the same time – and most importantly, that the latter has unequivocal precedence,” Rick Falkvinge told TorrentFreak.
“This is what we have been saying since 2006, that there is a strong conflict between the copyright monopoly and fundamental rights. It is quite a relief to see that not only confirmed in black and white, but also a verdict that the fundamental rights override the copyright monopoly.”
The entertainment industry on the other hand, will be greatly disappointed, as they are pushing hard for online services to take greater responsibility when it comes to copyright infringement.
Today’s ruling follows a similar European Court of Justice ruling last November which concluded that Belgian Internet provider Scarlet could not be forced to monitor subscriber traffic to detect piracy because that would violate the fundamental rights of both the ISP and its subscribers.
The book download portal Library.nu and cyberlocker ifile.it appear to have shut down voluntarily after a coalition of book publishers managed to get an injunction against the two sites. According to the complaint, the sites offered users access to 400,000 e-books and made more than $11 million in revenue in the process.
The publishers obtained an injunction against Library.nu and the cyberlocker ifile.it from the regional court in Munich.
athias Ortmann will be the subject of strict conditions including no Internet access. The US will now rely on a United Nations treaty to extradite the Mega team. Separately, it was revealed that the FBI remotely monitored last month’s raids and congratulated New Zealand police on their work.
Ortmann, from Germany, was released earlier today and will now join his co-accused Bram van der Kolk and Finn Batato at the former’s Auckland home. Bail conditions for all three are strict and include a complete ban on Internet access.
Says the foundation is knowingly and intentionally forcing companies to make payments which they know are in conflict with European laws. The foundation is twisting the truth when it says that those companies are to blame for the foundation not being able to distribute funds to artists, authors and composers.
“My story isn’t one of inspiration but one of caution. It could happen to anyone out there. I know people are thinking ‘nah, not me’, but that’s what I thought too and now here we are.”
Former judges Hans Westenberg and Pieter Kalbfleisch will be prosecuted for perjury. They lied in the investigation of the Chipshol case, as it is known, the Public Prosecutor’s Office said Friday.
Westenberg is accused of having lied three times (in 2006 and 2010) under oath. Kalbfleisch is being sued for two cases of perjury, both in 2010. He is a prominent lawyer and was until April last year chairman of the Netherlands Competition Authority (NMa).
As far as is known, this is the first time ever in the Netherlands that a judge has been prosecuted for perjury. The case will be heard in the district court in Utrecht in the second half of April.
Kalbfleisch and Westenberg were both vice-presidents of the district court in The Hague. In the 1990s, Kalbfleisch arranged that Westenberg handle a dispute between Chipshol and a minority shareholder in the company. This shareholder, like Westenberg, was a friend of Kalbfleisch. Westenberg found in favour of the minority shareholder, Harry van Andel.
As a result of a court verdict by Westenberg, the company Chipshol, which owned expensive building land around Schiphol airport, had to give up a substantial portion of its control of Chipshol to Harry van Andel. Chipshol director Peter Poot has been alleging since 1993 that the two judges deliberately frustrated his company. Recently, a clerk of the court came out with a statement confirming his story. This woman is an ex-partner of Kalbfleisch.
Chipshol Presses Charges Against the State of the Netherlands at the European Court of Human Rights
SCHIPHOL-RIJK, the Netherlands, July 28, 2010 /PRNewswire/ — The Dutch land development and investment company Chipshol is pressing charges against the State of the Netherlands at the European Court of Human Rights. As the largest private sector party in the region of Schiphol, Chipshol has been unlawfully obstructed by Schiphol and the State of the Netherlands for fifteen years. This has prevented the development of various Chipshol business parks. A construction ban was unlawfully declared for one terrain in 2003. As Schiphol refused to pay compensation, Chipshol started an action for damages. Partly due to the replacement, in 2007, of three Haarlem judges, who had ordered Schiphol to pay for all damages in 2005, there has not been a fair trial.
Chipshol, founded in 1986, is the only large private land development and investment company in the Schiphol region with in 1995 land holdings of almost 600 hectares. Proposals to cooperate were continuously refused by Schiphol, in response the airport started its own real estate company: Schiphol Real Estate. From that time on, Schiphol attempted to obstruct the development of Chipshol business parks with the support of all government organisations involved in project development. As a consequence not only the airport, but also the Air Traffic Control the Netherlands and the province of North Holland have been ordered to pay damages to Chipshol.
The legal action at the European Court of Human Rights focuses on a 30 hectare Chipshol terrain adjacent to the airport. Chipshol wishes to establish a sizeable logistical business park. But the CEO of Schiphol, Mr Cerfontaine, arranged a construction ban with the ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. This was partly based on a manipulated report of Air Traffic Control the Netherlands [Dutch acronym LVNL]. Air Traffic Control the Netherlands was ordered to pay damages to Chipshol by the Court of Amsterdam on 15 December 2009. Earlier, on 12 January 2005, the court of Haarlem had ordered Schiphol to pay damages to Chipshol because of the unjust construction ban.
Shortly before determining the exact amount of compensation, all three judges were replaced toward the end of the case, in early 2007. The new judges then determined an extremely low level of compensation of 16 million Euro, while Chipshol estimates the actual damages at almost 100 million Euro. The court was advised on this issue by an expert commission which was subsequently revealed to have close ties with Schiphol et al.
According to CEO Peter Poot of Chipshol, there has not been a fair trial since the replacement of the three judges: “Fundamental legal principles have now been violated in the Netherlands. This is why we are going to the European Court of Human Rights.” In a separate procedure, Chipshol wishes to reconstruct why, and by whom, the judges were replaced at the time, through a witness examination of six judges under oath.
The land development and investment company was recently able to enforce a witness examination under oath of six (former) judges in The Hague about the role of a vice-president of the Court of The Hague in the case. A controversial judgement by judge Mr J. Westenberg prevented Chipshol from competing with Schiphol Real Estate, the airport’s Real Estate company, for many years and caused it to lose approximately 450 hectares of land in the Schiphol region. It subsequently transpired that Westenberg was closely related to Chipshol’s opponents, including the airport’s lawyer, Mr T.R.B. de Greve. Westenberg took early retirement and is now suspected of offences including perjury, conflict of interest and corruption. The National Police Internal Investigations Department is investigating his actions. In November, Westenberg will be examined under oath by Chipshol together with other (ex) members of the head of The Hague Court, a unique case by Dutch standards.
Lawyers representing the US authorities also said that a man with a history of making fake travel documents had unsuccessfully asked to visit Mr Dotcom following his arrest.
Mr Dotcom’s said he had no intention of running away. He said he wanted to be with his pregnant wife and fight to get his assets unfrozen. He also denied all knowledge of the rejected visitor.
“If people were to approach me and to offer such a service, I would tell them to go to hell,” Mr Dotcom said.
He added that he had also been contacted by a man claiming to be a prosecutor, who had said he could organise a favourable bail hearing in return for a payment.
He also complained that he had been sent letters from female prison inmates asking to become his pen pals.
Mr Dotcom’s next court appearance is scheduled for 22 February, when his extradition hearing is planned.
