Anti-piracy group wants to catch e-book pirates; vendors now required to help them

[frahse]

Originally Posted by Alexander Turcic

TorrentFreak has published a report stating that Dutch vendors who sell watermarked e-books are now required to share identifying information of suspected pirates with the Dutch anti-piracy outfit BREIN.


Digital watermarks are one of the technologies being touted as a means to deter piracy of digital content. The issue with watermarks is that they're subject to abuses that could invade an innocent consumer's privacy or, worse, expose him to lawsuits for infringements he did not commit.

In a blog entry, Kurt Roeckx, who runs the Dutch speaking e-book store E-webshops, shares his doubt about the legality of working hand in hand with the anti-piracy group.



You can read his full blog entry here.

Image: peasap/Flickr

I have been thinking about this.

In the US at least, I hope that a court order, at a minimum, is required to get customer information.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

So how hard is it now (or soon enough) to remove the watermark?

I'm sure that for every 'new' DRM invention there will be an equally 'new' stripper, eh.

Reminds me of a joke from The Simpsons where Bart calls the bar and asks for "Amanda Hugginkiss". I expect the watermark could be changed easily enough. I can just imagine this anti-picracy group kicking in the door demanding "Where is Amanda Hugginkiss? I demand that you hand over Amanda Hugginkiss!"

The funny thing is that while I imagine them as jack-booted thugs, the voice that comes to mind is that of Marvin the Martian from Bugs Bunny.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by frahse

I have been thinking about this.
In the US at least, I hope that a court order, at a minimum, is required to get customer information.

Are you writing about willing or unwilling vendors?

There are many vendors that sell or share customer information. If that is adequately (from the government POV) disclosed, the government does not care.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by usuallee

If unauthorized downloaders are caught, by the proper authorities, fine.

Could you explain how this fine thing should come to be?

I am having a hard time understanding how the government could catch unauthorized downloaders without bigger civil liberties concerns than when businesses do it, but maybe I am missing something.

No one that I know of thinks the "proper authorities" should be spending tax dollars catching shoplifters. Instead, this is the responsibility of the retail industry. Then the store (possibly working with a video surveillance firm or other consultant) decides whether an internal sanction, such as calling parents or forbidding someone from the premises is sufficient, or if they are going to call the police. I don't see why it would be different with digital scofflaws.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by samy2

No not fine. In most countries downloading ist not illegal.

I don't think they're going after downloaders. They have no way of knowing who the downloaders are. They are going after uploaders, and would be using the watermark to identify the uploader. I don't think they really care about the downloaders.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by frahse

I have been thinking about this.

In the US at least, I hope that a court order, at a minimum, is required to get customer information.

I'm not sure what you mean by "at a minimum"; there is nothing stronger than a court order. But some court orders are more complicated than others and have more power.

And you wouldn't need a court order in the US if the vendor is willing, although they may request a court order to protect themselves.

[samy2]

The Problem with with watermarks:
To whom does the watermark refers? To the person who once legal got the ebook. Is this person always the one, who does anything illegal? Not always. You can just lose your e-reader with my ebooks, you can legaly lend it to some other person. You just don't know an can't control what the other person is doing with you ebooks. So watermark is no proof of anything. Further if you buy an ebook with a watermark you have to worry to be sometime accused to piracy. So its better not to buy any ebook, just go and get it from other people or other websites. A long as the legal purchaser of ebooks is in a much worse state (often annoyed with hard DRM), there will be no end to piracy...

[Alexander Turcic]

Update: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=221043

Should private organizations such as BREIN, who have no legal or investigative authority, be allowed to access private customer information in their attempt to identify the people alleged to be offering pirated content?

[usuallee]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Could you explain how this fine thing should come to be?

I am having a hard time understanding how the government could catch unauthorized downloaders without bigger civil liberties concerns than when businesses do it, but maybe I am missing something.

No one that I know of thinks the "proper authorities" should be spending tax dollars catching shoplifters. Instead, this is the responsibility of the retail industry. Then the store (possibly working with a video surveillance firm or other consultant) decides whether an internal sanction, such as calling parents or forbidding someone from the premises is sufficient, or if they are going to call the police. I don't see why it would be different with digital scofflaws.

Hmmm...some solid points Steve, you are making me think here. Perhaps neither the government nor any private entity like this Brien vigilante outfit should be able to enforce copyright in such a manner, the civil liberties concerns being too great. As Katsunami pointed out already, in the digital realm the possibilities for potential abuses and/or erroneous accusations is nearly endless.

I do support that content creators and/or retailers should have some means to protect their wares and not have to sit back and be totally at the mercy of unauthorized downloaders/uploaders. But I feel that above all, personal privacy and civil liberties of the individual must be guarded from unnecessary intrusion, and there must be due process. It's a thorny issue, with no easy answers, no doubt about it.

I know one thing, Brien's scheme as described, of demanding compliance from retailers to cough up their customer's personal info upon demand OR ELSE, is utterly repugnant to me personally, and in my humble opinion they shouldn't be allowed to do it.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by usuallee

As Katsunami pointed out already, in the digital realm the possibilities for potential abuses and/or erroneous accusations is nearly endless.

The potential for abuse so extremely great, that if I wanted to cause huge problems for you, the only thing I'd have to do is pick up your e-reader during lunch break, get the books off of it using Portable Calibre on a USB stick, and then "lose" the USB stick in the vicinity of someone who I know uploads stuff to the internet. And being an IT guy with an IT education, I know a few of them that did (or maybe still do), at least in their college days.

I know one thing, Brien's (correction Kat: BREIN) scheme as described, of demanding compliance from retailers to cough up their customer's personal info upon demand OR ELSE, is utterly repugnant to me personally, and in my humble opinion they shouldn't be allowed to do it.

The fact that BREIN is forcing the hand of the vendors in such a way would, at least to me, be an indication that there is a big chance that the clause is not valid under scrutiny of law. Because, if the law would permit it, they'd not have to use an "OR ELSE!" part.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Could you explain how this fine thing should come to be?

I am having a hard time understanding how the government could catch unauthorized downloaders without bigger civil liberties concerns than when businesses do it, but maybe I am missing something.

No one that I know of thinks the "proper authorities" should be spending tax dollars catching shoplifters. Instead, this is the responsibility of the retail industry. Then the store (possibly working with a video surveillance firm or other consultant) decides whether an internal sanction, such as calling parents or forbidding someone from the premises is sufficient, or if they are going to call the police. I don't see why it would be different with digital scofflaws.

In Canada we don't have enough "proper authorities" to catch burglars it seems or enough places to keep them when they get caught

Helen

[StormThrill]

With the way torrents and other P2P private networks are going, these companies and the government are fighting a losing battle. If this ever stops in my lifetime I will be in shock!

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by frahse

I have been thinking about this.

In the US at least, I hope that a court order, at a minimum, is required to get customer information.

It is not. Police or other officials can request that a business turn over its client information, and many of them will comply.

More recently, Verizon and AT&T have turned over a great deal of data to the government without court orders.

[TadW]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

The fact that BREIN is forcing the hand of the vendors in such a way would, at least to me, be an indication that there is a big chance that the clause is not valid under scrutiny of law. Because, if the law would permit it, they'd not have to use an "OR ELSE!" part.

BREIN must never have the legal power to access private consumer information from third parties. They are certainly not to be trusted.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...response.shtml

http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-...laptop-090904/

http://zoklet.net/bbs/showthread.php?t=69439

http://torrentfreak.com/brein-seizes...ay-sue-110222/

[frahse]

To many.

When I said earlier "at a minimum, a court order" I meant that vendors shouldn't turn over purchasers names without a court order, and that court order had to be specifically for some complaint that had a obvious and important connection. e.g. the purchase was found at the scene of the murder clutched in the deceased person's hands.

For example, if I find that a vendor has given someone my name, address, phone number, and credit information, I will first broadcast that fact to future potential purchasers and probably sue as well.