Anti-piracy company MarkMonitor is a trusted partner of major record labels. Among other things, the company provided evidence and testimony for the ongoing piracy lawsuit against Internet provider Bright House. This week, MarkMonitor petitioned the court to keep this information confidential, fearing that TorrentFreak would share it with the general public, which could include pirates.
We at TorrentFreak do our best to keep readers updated on the latest copyright and piracy news, highlighting issues from different points of view.
We report on the views and efforts of copyright holders regarding online piracy and have active dialogues with anti-piracy teams. At the same time, we also make room for those who oppose them. This is how balanced information works in our opinion.
There is probably no site on the Internet that reports on the negative consequences of piracy as much as we do, and for some reason the term "pro-piracy" is sometimes attached to our reports.
In most cases, we ignore these characterizations and conclude that those who portray us in this way are simply not informed. However, when these words are part of a court file intended to hide information from the public, we have to respond.
Evidence of MarkMonitor
This week, MarkMonitor Against Piracy filed a petition with a federal court in Florida, requesting the option to present some sealed evidence. This information includes documents, source code, and witness testimony about the company's efforts to track down pirates online.
The presentation is part of the legal battle between various record labels and the ISP Bright House, which is accused of failing to put an end to repeated copyright infringement. This accusation is based on evidence from MarkMonitor.
MarkMonitor believes that the requested information is confidential and asks the court to keep it out of public view. This is not an unusual request as sealed filings are quite common. However, the argumentation certainly stands out.
TorrentFreak Threat?
The anti-piracy team informs the court that it is particularly concerned about a particular news site called TorrentFreak.
โDesignating and maintaining the confidential nature of this information by keeping it on file under seal also helps prevent Torrent Freak from unrestricted publication of the Confidential Information,โ writes MarkMonitor.
The request explains that TF and others share news with the general public, including people who may be involved in hacking or hacking. That can potentially reach pirate subscribers who are at the center of the demand.
Later in the presentation, MarkMonitor's legal team uses the term "pro-piracy", without elaborating on how TorrentFreak would fit into this category.
โ[T]Confidential Information here is private in nature [โฆ] public interest is low, but for competitors who want to gain an unfair advantage over MarkMonitor or others who want to advertise or exploit MarkMonitor's highly sensitive technical information in the pro-piracy industry to the general public."
MarkMonitor's filing supports a sealing request from both main parties in the lawsuit. In the original motion, the record labels clarify that some of MarkMonitor's evidence could help pirates evade detection.
Perplexed
Needless to say, we are stumped after reading this presentation. While it's totally understandable that MarkMonitor and record labels don't want to share private or confidential information in public, highlighting TorrentFreak is completely unnecessary.
Worse yet, using the term "pro-piracy" is totally inaccurate. Judging by the responses we received, our readership is quite diverse. In fact, copyright owners often approach us with news and quote regularly our independent report, including markmonitor did it in the past.
While it is true that we report in detail on these types of lawsuits, we cover the good and the bad for all parties. This also includes positive news for MarkMonitor and record labels.
This is not the first time that the name of this publication has appeared in court documents. Record labels previously portrayed TorrentFreak as a unreliable source. In addition, music companies were particularly interested in knowing if potential jurors in these cases read our news coverage.
โ
A copy of MarkMonitor's filing in support of the joint motion to file under seal is available here (pdf)
