What Happens When Telecom Companies Search Your Home For Piracy (vice.com) 124
ted_pikul writes:
Adam Lackman ran TVAddons, a site hosting unofficial addons for Kodi media center. Last year, a legal team representing some of Canada's most powerful telecom and media companies raided his home with a court order -- they searched his apartment, copying hard drives and devices, took his laptop, and shut down his website and Twitter account [which had 100,000 followers]. Now, he's being sued for piracy and sinking deep into debt as he fights to make it to trial.
From Motherboard: Lackman did not have to let anybody into his home that morning. But it presented a legal catch-22: if he hadn't, he would be in breach of a court order and could have been subjected to fines or imprisonment. "In high school you learn that if someone doesn't have a warrant, you don't let them into your house," Lackman told me. "I didn't know there was this whole other law where big companies can spend money [on lawyers] and do whatever they want".... Shortly after the search, a federal judge ruled the search unlawful in a procedural hearing. The questioning was an "interrogation," the judge said, without the safeguards normally afforded to defendants, and presenting Lackman with a list of names to snitch on was "egregious." The plaintiffs also did not make a strong enough case that TVAddons was solely intended to enable piracy, the judge decided... The plaintiffs appealed this decision, and in February a panel of three judges -- this time in the federal court of appeals -- overturned the previous decision in its entirety. The search was lawful and conducted within legal parameters, the judges agreed. The list of names was only presented to Lackman to "expedite the questioning process," and "despite a few objectionable questions" the nine-hour question period was not an interrogation, the panel ruled....
Everything that's happened to him so far has occured before a trial where he can argue the facts of how TVAddons operated, and yet the judge who approved the search order and the judge who upheld it on appeal have already effectively ruled that his website was designed to facilitate piracy....
Lackman has already been ordered to pay $55,000 for the legal fees of the companies suing him, according to the article, and he's "already hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to his own legal team...
"[I]n the new Canadian anti-piracy regime led by powerful companies, just being accused of enabling piracy can come with immense personal consequences even before your day in court."
From Motherboard: Lackman did not have to let anybody into his home that morning. But it presented a legal catch-22: if he hadn't, he would be in breach of a court order and could have been subjected to fines or imprisonment. "In high school you learn that if someone doesn't have a warrant, you don't let them into your house," Lackman told me. "I didn't know there was this whole other law where big companies can spend money [on lawyers] and do whatever they want".... Shortly after the search, a federal judge ruled the search unlawful in a procedural hearing. The questioning was an "interrogation," the judge said, without the safeguards normally afforded to defendants, and presenting Lackman with a list of names to snitch on was "egregious." The plaintiffs also did not make a strong enough case that TVAddons was solely intended to enable piracy, the judge decided... The plaintiffs appealed this decision, and in February a panel of three judges -- this time in the federal court of appeals -- overturned the previous decision in its entirety. The search was lawful and conducted within legal parameters, the judges agreed. The list of names was only presented to Lackman to "expedite the questioning process," and "despite a few objectionable questions" the nine-hour question period was not an interrogation, the panel ruled....
Everything that's happened to him so far has occured before a trial where he can argue the facts of how TVAddons operated, and yet the judge who approved the search order and the judge who upheld it on appeal have already effectively ruled that his website was designed to facilitate piracy....
Lackman has already been ordered to pay $55,000 for the legal fees of the companies suing him, according to the article, and he's "already hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to his own legal team...
"[I]n the new Canadian anti-piracy regime led by powerful companies, just being accused of enabling piracy can come with immense personal consequences even before your day in court."
If you are going publish something like that (Score:1)
Talk to a lawyer first!
Re: (Score:1)
Well, did the site or Kodi addons host any media files themselves or was it just hitting up torrent or file servers? If it's the latter, the addons could have been hosted in any number of countries without anyone finding out about this guy.
Re: (Score:3)
You might have a moral case there, but unfortunately, you don't have a legal one.
Actually he does. The courts have been pretty consistent that in return for the media levy, we're allowed to copy music for non-profit reasons. Unluckily that doesn't cover video, though if they get their 15GB tax (only reason anyone uses over 15GB a month is to stream shit and since the streaming companies pay shit, us consumers can pay a tax which in theory will go to the artists who are getting ripped off by the capitalists) perhaps that'll change.
Re: (Score:1)
> (only reason anyone uses over 15GB a month is to stream shit
Yeah, sure. And if I like analyzing astronomic data, instead? Or running a D&D session using video conferencing? Or (insert tons of things I can't think of right now and even maybe haven't been invented yet)?
The first hit on my search for "15GB tax" doesn't seem to indicate that the proposed tax won't be levied on data downloaded from legal (i.e., paid-for) streaming services. Which makes no sense, since if you "stream shit" that you pay
Re: (Score:2)
The weird reasoning is that Netflix, YouTube etc won't give out numbers, making it hard to pay royalties to the content producers, so have a tax to pay the content producers and since no one uses the internet for stuff like analyzing astronomical data, just streaming and low bandwidth stuff like email, tax them (actually probably officially a levy as the money will go to the industry, who promise to share it with the artists).
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/201... [michaelgeist.ca]
Misleading at best (Score:2, Insightful)
While this might have been his home, it was also his place of business. His site clearly is intended to aid piracy (it clearly states "don't get in trouble for streaming, get a VPN" which would not be necc for a legit operation). If he is going to fight the law, he should be aware of the likely outcome. Not saying that piracy is immoral (not walking into that trap;) but it is clearly illegal and if your business is to buck the law, at the minimum you should have a lawyer on tap.
Re: (Score:1)
Obviously not. You may be legit and still be sued by someone with big pockets enough to make your life hell. Being innocent doesn't count for much lately. Much like in medieval times in fact.
So Then, The Best Option... (Score:5, Insightful)
...When a Canadian is accused of "aiding piracy" as this fellow was, is to go on a killing spree at those corporate HQs/boardrooms because your entire life is well and truly fucked no matter what.
Got it.
Time to SWAT (Score:4, Interesting)
Should SWAT some media company executives, see how they like it.
How to overturn the rule of law (Score:5, Insightful)
Hire a group of really smart lawyers
- to convince a lower court to grant an "Anton Piller" order to allow one party to a suit to search the premises and seize evidence from the other party without prior warning.
- to go over a credible judgement by the lower court and make it sound like something a superior court will see as bad. That requires a lot of legal research, and also a very good PR plan to chose the arguments that will appeal to a superior court.
- to find a way to levy "costs against" before the case is even heard, effectively keeping the defendant from being able to afford high-priced help, and
To do so before the case is actually heard.
The legal team here is quite magical. I suspect they're also rather expensive.
--dave
See Bell Canada v. Lackman, 2018 FCA 42 (CanLII), , as retrieved on 2018-10-27
Re: How to overturn the rule of law (Score:2)
The problem with hiring a bunch of really smart lawyers is that you will owe THEM as much or more financially to get you out of trouble as the fines / fees in the first place.
Lawyers are for rich people. Jail is for the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullying is not always about money.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you have lawyers working pro-bono, the other side can drag it out until you run out of money. By, for example, getting a court order saying you have to close down your business.
Evil is as evil does
Re: (Score:2)
>- to convince a lower court to grant an "Anton Piller" order to allow one party to a suit to search the premises and seize evidence from the other party without prior warning
"Anton Piller" maneuver still requires the consent of the defendant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the cited article as well as CanLII, you can see how it was spun. This is a real problem in "access to justice", in that a company with both a good lawyer and a good PR advisor can make a case to the motions judge that successfully paints github as a criminal conspirator (:-))
It's been a problem for quite some time: in the 'States, there is a TV series based on the adventures of Dr Phil in his early career as a "jury consultant", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Fahrenheit 451 (Score:5, Informative)
This has been going on for 10-15 years now. DMCA and such. This is standard fare.
We're all just secretly hoping it won't happen to us. But if they want to get you, they will.
They just need to make something up and take all your shit and fuck up your life big time.
See this guy for details. And wether he's done something wrong or not doesn't matter.
His life right now is fucked up bit time. True thing.
To me the solution is obvious:
Have a backup plan. Like a *real* backup plan.
Something like this:
- Mirroring of your critical data to a remote unknown location.
- Fallback computers hidden away.
- All critical documents copied and stored in an unknown location.
- Emergency cash.
- Crypto key USB sticks hidden away.
- Tried and tested disaster recovery scripts and procedures.
- Fallback spoof Google/Apple/Whatnot accounts that also have access to your main stuff - to salvage what you can when they've already come for you.
- Know where to go when they are after you. Where and how would you hide out / away?
Hardcore prepper style stuff (this is higher lever "society collapses" fallback):
- Functioning pocket water filter.
- Working digital radio with means to cheaply transfer digital data via SSB or something (PSK 31 handled with a Rasberry Pi or something)
As for the scenario this guy is in - a good way to prepare for this is to ask yourself: What would be my fallbacks if *right* *now* the police came, raided me and took all my stuff? And what can I do to prevent the worst from happening out of that? We've had this sort of thing in Germany on and off for a few decades, ever since the 80ies. The famous Chaos Computer Club [www.ccc.de] and its members know these scenarios. There are some been-there-done-this talks on youtube on how they dealt with stuff like this. Enlightening - also the emotional aspect. (some are German, but probably subtitled so you'll get some info).
Bottom line: Be prepared. It's that simple and makes a huuuuge difference when the brown stuff hits the fan.
My 2 eurocents.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
To me the solution is obvious, as well. This wasn't a police raid, it was a bunch of lawyers (admittedly with a bailiff). Once they've come for you like that, your life is fucked.
The solution is to kill the fucking lawyers who came for you. You can spare the bailiff if you like; I would, they're just doing their job. Then you kill yourself.
That should teach the lawyers that some cases aren't worth taking on. (It may not teach 'em, there's always another scumsucking lawyer around.)
Re: (Score:1)
150 years ago, if a person acted too shitty, you killed them. If you were sloppy about it, you moved to a new city and took up a new name. Real social justice.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that's a course of action that would have been strongly approved of in Republican Rome.
Re: (Score:2)
Have a backup plan. Like a *real* backup plan.(...) We've had this sort of thing in Germany on and off for a few decades, ever since the 80ies.
Funny how you should bring up Germany, since we have a lot of Nazis from the 40s trying to go into hiding. A whole lot of them failed, with 2018 technology the rest would have probably failed too. This is not the cattle thieves of the wild wild west, today it's extremely hard to escape a past identity. Unless you got a country protecting yourself like Assange and Snowden you probably can't win.
Re: (Score:3)
Encrypt everything.
Keep a broken USB flash drive around. If they demand the crypto keys, tell them they are on that drive and it's the only copy. They must have broken it when they collected it, so now there is no way anyone can unlock those drives.
Re: (Score:2)
Just one minor quibble.
The emergency cash should be at a secondary location.
If there is cash on premises, they're probably going to take it.
Re: (Score:2)
The 31 in PSK31 refers to the bit rate. 31 bits per second. It's not designed for speed, it's designed for extreme noise tolerance.
Re: (Score:2)
This is happening in Canada now because we are aligning our copyright, patent, and trademark laws with the US in preparation for a trade agreement. I think it was for theTPP which the US didn't end up signing. We just signed the enacted the revised TPP agreement that doesn't include the US and didn't really need to make the changes to copyright, if that's what they were for.
Re: (Score:2)
Morale of the story (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't run questionable servers in a way that it can be traced back to your physical self.
It really sucks that the law is failing the common citizen, but at the same time, he did create this entire situation all on his lonesome. My sympathy is limited.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Morale of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed.
(posting to undo erroneous moderation)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same shit happened for US satellite 15 years ago (Score:2, Informative)
15 years ago Bell got pissed off at Canadians paying for US satellite TV so through their corruption of the CRTC managed to make it illegal. They used Anton Piller orders to bust people for piracy back then. The "piracy" of PAYING for satellite TV the Canadian Government disapproved of (ie: Any satellite TV that isn't Canadian).
Same results, regular hardworking Canadians who just wanted to enjoy HBO movies on the weekend ended up having to choose between massive default fines payable to Bell, or paying B
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's Bell here too. They're repeating a successful tactic, right down to the Anton Piller order.
Of course, the same people who have tried (and fortunately not succeeded) to censor the internet.
https://openmedia.org/en/huge-... [openmedia.org]
Bell is just a really douchey company with little redeeming value to society.
Re: (Score:2)
They're still trying, and with the new NAFTA crafted by a reality TV star, they might succeed.
We have the 15 GB tax (only reason a household would use more then 15 GBs a month is due to legally streaming from companies that rip off the artists, so we the people, should pay a tax that in theory would help pay the artists who signed a bad contract) http://www.michaelgeist.ca/201... [michaelgeist.ca]
Then we have the move to tax or censor HTML links, this link should cover it, but it is currently not loading properly in my old b
Re: (Score:2)
Search by the plaintiff (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How can a search by the plaintiff itself be ruled legal? This should be the police's job.
The police are only involved in criminal matters. This is a civil suit. Read about Anton Piller [wikipedia.org] orders.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame the victim doesn't have the means to take it to the Supreme Court, and even if he did, who knows how they'd rule for sure.
so.... no different than in the US (Score:1)
Cross Canada off the list of potential expat destinations.
Didn't have to? (Score:3)
Lackman did not have to let anybody into his home that morning. But it presented a legal catch-22: if he hadn't, he would be in breach of a court order and could have been subjected to fines or imprisonment.
Uh, this statement makes no sense. Of course he didn't 'have to' let anybody into his home, but the threat of legal action compelled him to.
I don't 'have to' let cops into my home, even with a search warrant... but they'll just bust down my door and arrest me for not letting them in. How is this situation different?
I'm also curious how a court order gets imposed on somebody that isn't even given a chance to argue against it in court. His first chance to contest it is when they show up to his door and threaten him? Seems really strange to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Welcome to the modern world... where money outranks rights, ethics and morality every time.
Re: (Score:1)
Read up on the type of order. The logic for the order's existence makes sense -- that an entity might try to destroy evidence if informed ahead of time.
What he *should* have done, is some sort of compromise. Stand in the door, call a lawyer, that sort of thing. However he was likely being "yelled at" repeatedly at that point...
What I think SHOULD happen in these cases, is that the court should appoint a neutral to accompany in these cases. Oversight should be provided. That would help quite a bit... al
Re: (Score:2)
Search orders. It's a bit of a legal oddity, yes, because like much of common law it's based as much on precedent as legislation. It's not the same as a search warrant, because it's used in civil matters. It does not authorise the search of property without the defendent's consent: It instead orders the defendant to consent to the search, or else they will be held in contempt of court. This means that they cannot later claim the search was unlawful because they did give their consent at the time. The end re
No priorities (Score:3)
US government (and apparently Canada too) have no problem pursuing someone for pirating a $20-30 movie, but the US wonâ(TM)t even lift a finger for people getting scammed out of thousands with telephone scams via spoofed numbers. âoeWeâ(TM)ll never catch them anyway,â they say. I bet if they stopped chasing pirates and made telemarket scams a priority they might make a dent in it.
Re: (Score:1)
US government (and apparently Canada too) have no problem pursuing someone for pirating a $20-30 movie, but the US wonâ(TM)t even lift a finger for people getting scammed out of thousands with telephone scams via spoofed numbers. âoeWeâ(TM)ll never catch them anyway,â they say. I bet if they stopped chasing pirates and made telemarket scams a priority they might make a dent in it.
I am surprised that Trump hasn't threatened to levy tariffs against India and Pakistan for their roles in allowing scamming on a international level via their call centres. I recently had to change my number and make it completely private to stop them from constantly harassing me day and night for months.
Re: (Score:2)
[...] but the US wonâ(TM)t even lift a finger for people getting scammed out of thousands with telephone scams via spoofed numbers.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
Let's not be shrill and disingenuous here. The FCC _is_ doing something about it, but we are still beset with the problem.
How to protect yourself as well as get revenge (Score:1)
There's a way to almost completely protect yourself from raids like this, as well as take revenge upon the companies who see piracy everywhere and use their thug tactics like this.
Don't watch.
Don't watch their TV shows. Don't watch their movies. Don't listen to their music. I'm not saying don't pirate; I'm not saying only watch via legal means. Don't watch it at all. I know -- to many the idea of simply not watching TV, or movies, or listening to music, is incomprehensible.
They only have money, and thus p
Options (Score:2)
You can delay while you seek legal counsel, refuse to let the search proceed (at risk of contempt of court), and seek to vary the order, undertaking to not destroy any evidence.
Google "Anton pillar freehills".
Re: (Score:2)
"undertaking to not destroy any evidence"
Encrypting is not destroying.
Re: (Score:1)
Not cucks, but Canucks.
Re: (Score:3)
Good luck finding a politician in Canada who might actually be able to get elected and who is actually going to (not just promise to) make it harder for the big media companies to take anti-piracy actions like this.
Re: (Score:2)
And you laugh at all the people who think that the tree of liberty needs watering now and then, and let them take your tools.
Gee, I thought they were all "progressive". Oh, that's what that means now. I forgot.
I know a few Canadians who are smart...but it seems not the majority in any effective way.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what happens when you live besides a corrupt kleptocracy. Look at the new NAFTA, basically same as the old with a bunch of new IP shit thrown in.
What are we supposed to do, invade the States? They're 10 times larger and have a huge credit card to buy weapons with and a previous right wing government (whose party was wiped out afterwards) sold us out in the name of free trade, which we adjusted to.
Living next to a fascist state that is much larger and crazy enough to routinely remove peoples freedoms
Re: (Score:3)
Sure wish that you guys would do something about your corrupt system, didn't see the party that brought free trade to you getting wiped out
The Democrats ? NAFTA came in 1994 Clinton was president and he had a Democratic controlled congress. Now they are reduced to having people scream at congress while covering themselves in menstrual blood and other crazy people to try and achieve their goals. https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/05... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Reagan pushed the original America-Canada free trade agreement, Clinton expanded it to include Mexico. The Republicans are the ones who have just pushed us into accepting a bunch more IP shit including extending copyright because America was only running a small trade surplus with us and has a President too stupid to look up facts. It is America that elected a reality TV star (and previously an actor) who strongly believes in IP to protect his brand and make sure his great grandchildren can profit of his wo
Re: (Score:2)
IP ??
Was pretty sure the last round of changes primarily hit Dairy, Wine and Automobiles, with steel and aluminum being carrot and stick. I don't know what line of work you are in but the increased access to Canada for financial companies could be either big or small.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, IP, all the shit that was in the TPP and we got rid of after you bailed. The dairy wine and especially automobiles changes are minor, eg we already pay our workers over $15 an hour and yes, we'll have to go into debt like you to keep our dairy industry rather then a regulated market and I never did hear anything about wine, probably something to do with the tariffs we imposed in retaliation for the illegal softwood lumber tariffs.
From http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x... [mondaq.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Legal weed though.
Re: Eh, whaddya gonna do? (Score:1)