Posts by Prophet

As Grooveshark parent company Escape Media prepares to face off against the world's largest record labels in New York later today, the company is bracing for the worst. In a pre-hearing ruling a judge described Grooveshark's copyright violations on 4,907 tracks as "willful", potentially putting the company on the hook for $736 million in damages.

8e6cfe24c81db535a3b48e3.jpg

Streaming music service Grooveshark has been through some turbulent times in its relatively short history, but events this week could determine the company’s future.

The dispute with the world’s largest recording labels in UMG Recording Inc et al v. Escape Media Group Inc et al is without doubt Grooveshark parent company Escape Media’s biggest challenge yet. At its heart is a copyright infringement claim that could run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

While the suit itself is complex, at its core is the complaint that Grooveshark co-founders and employees historically uploaded more than 150,000 infringing tracks to Grooveshark in order to increase its popularity.

“Please share as much music as possible from outside the office, and leave your computers on whenever you can,” wrote co-founder Josh Greenberg in an email to staff. “This initial content is what will help to get our network started—it’s very important that we all help out!”

As a result, last September U.S. District Judge Thomas P. Griesa ruled that the company’s two co-founders were directly and secondarily liable for infringing the copyrights of nine large recording labels.

Ahead of the trial which is due to begin today in the Federal Courthouse, New York, Judge Thomas P. Griesa delivered yet another blow to Grooveshark parent company Escape Media.

Noting that the case now involves ‘just’ 4,907 recordings (2,963 tracks plus 1,944 “employee uploads”) Judge Griesa said that the label plaintiffs have chosen to pursue statutory damages, meaning that if infringements are found to be “willful”, Grooveshark could be on the hook for $150,000 per track.

In the event the ruling notes that the court has already determined that Grooveshark acted both “willfully” and “in bad faith” although some defense will be allowed.

“Defendants may present proof as to the degree and extent of their willfulness or bad faith,” the Judge writes.

Among other things, Escape will argue that between 2007 and 2009 it showed good faith by approaching a number of the record company plaintiffs in an attempt to negotiate licensing deals.

“[The] court will permit defendants to present evidence at trial concerning the general factual background – but not the substantive financial terms – of the
parties’ negotiations for future licensing. Such evidence or argument must be tethered to defendants’ state of mind or conduct in infringing the Works in Suit,” Judge Griesa adds.

If the jury doesn’t buy the arguments of Escape / Grooveshark and decides it appropriate to award the top rate, Escape Media could be forced to pay in excess of $736 million in damages. The jury could also award much less, but it’s difficult to envision an affordable outcome to the case for the streaming music service.

Good luck with the sale, thank you for following the For Sale guidelines :thumb:

great post this fezz, keep us updated on any new developments, you can be very proud of your work, nice job buddy :thumb:

Closed as deal has expired now

BitTorrent Inc., the company behind the popular uTorrent file-sharing client, has laid off close to a third of its U.S. workforce. Speaking with TorrentFreak a source close to the company says that up to 45 workers had their contracts terminated Thursday, "gutting" the company's advertising team and pushing more work to its offices in Minsk, Belarus.

4d37416.jpg

During the past few years BitTorrent Inc. has grown at a surprising rate, taking on increasing numbers of employees to fill various roles at the expanding company.

On Thursday, however, things took a turn for the worse. Rumors began to spread that BitTorrent Inc. had laid off dozens of staff in its biggest shake up since 2008, yet no official statement was forthcoming from the company.

Then on Friday two separate sources, at least one of whom was a former employee at the San Franciso-based company, revealed the scale of the layoffs.

“About 40-45 people in their US office just got laid off which represents a large percentage of the US workforce,” one of the sources revealed. Another described the cutting of “around a third” of an estimated 150 U.S.-based employees.

“The Ads team has been gutted as have several other groups – more development work is being sent to the BitTorrent team in Minsk. Only one person from senior management was let go, as is often the case in these types of things,” an insider told TF.

In comments to Buzzfeed, BitTorrent Inc. put a positive spin on events, describing the layoffs as a “realignment” of the business.

“We’ve recently realigned resources based on a regular evaluation of the business,” a spokesperson said. “Regrettably, this did include some employee departures. The business however, remains healthy, profitable and growing.”

A source close to the company painted a slightly different picture, however.

“The whole point is to save money and to try and return the company to profitability since it expanded its headcount way too fast and based on very unrealistic revenue projections. The morale, as you can imagine, is pretty low just now,” the source said.

One person presumed to be safe is Christian Averill, who was promoted to Vice President, Communications & Brand last month.

“My efforts will be focused on having our brands such as Bundle and Sync stand on their own and have a strong mind share in the market,” he said.

Averill’s promotion suggests that BitTorrent intends to continue efforts to put Sync and its content distribution deals front and center of its business. Meanwhile, its uTorrent and BitTorrent clients will continue to generate most of the company’s revenues.

The website of the popular TV-torrent distribution group EZTV is showing some unusual changes again. It appears that the group's eztv.ch domain name has fallen into new hands.

21eeb5244054a347b.png

EZTV, the go-to place for many torrenting TV fans, has suffered its fair share of troubles in recent months.

In January the group lost its .it domain name, which was then taken over by impostors in March.

The torrent distribution group meanwhile continued to operate from the new EZTV.ch domain name, but during the past few hours this new home went through some changes as well.

Instead of hosting official EZTV torrents the .CH domain now links to the same content as the ‘unofficial’ EZTV.it site. While there are plenty of TV-torrents available, these are sourced externally from RARBG.

And there are more signs pointing to a takeover. Users are not able to login for example, and the scam warning that was previously listed on the .ch domain in gone as well. In addition the site now serves various ads including popunders.

Upon close inspection it appears that the domain name was taken over at the registrar level. The WHOIS information was updated and now lists the UK-based “EZCLOUD LIMITED” as owner, which is the same company that registered the .it domain.

TF reached out to ETZV’s Novaking to find out more about the apparent takeover, but we have yet to receive a reply. EZCLOUD director Hernandez Dominguez Emmanuel hasn’t responded to our inquiries either.

4e3d850e047c41097a43a.png

I see Ste has put he gets 53e-45w but interesting to know what is coming in on 65cm

Very nice setup Ste, nice and neat job that

Which Sats are you able to pick up ?

People who run 'pirate' sites out of Russia have been given a final warning by the government. Amendments to local copyright law that come into force May 1 not only protect more content than ever before, but also contain provisions to permanently block sites that continually make unauthorized content available.

4e16ec89116cb03c700.jpg

Following massive pressure from both local and international rightsholders, 21 months ago Russia took steps to improve its reputation of going soft on piracy.

On August 1, 2013, the country introduced a brand new intellectual property law which provided a mechanism through which sites could be blocked by intermediaries should they not comply with rightsholder takedown requests within 72 hours.

A year later telecoms watchdog Roscomnadzor revealed that during the law’s first year of operation the Moscow City Court imposed preliminary interim injunctions against 175 sites following copyright complaints. It went on to block just 12 file-sharing domains for being unresponsive to takedowns, many of them BitTorrent trackers.

With complaints from copyright holders continuing to mount, Russia decided to make further amendments to the legislation. Initially only video content was covered by the law but with an expansion scheduled for May 1, 2015, all multimedia content (photographs excluded) will receive protection. Furthermore, the law also amends the provisions on preliminary injunctions.

Although it remains unclear how the new system will work in practice, the theory is that intermediaries (ISPs and webhosts) can be ordered by the Court to permanently block websites that continually host or provide access to infringing content. At least at this early stage it appears to be the kind of system U.S. copyright holders are pushing for elsewhere, one in which content that is taken down, stays down.

With the new law just over a week away, State Duma Deputy Speaker Sergei Zheleznyak has been underlining the legislation’s reach.

“The anti-piracy legislation that created the ability to block access to sites that distribute copyright-infringing films and TV shows entered into force on 1 August 2013. On May 1, 2015 amendments to the Act will come into force that apply to music, books and software,” Zheleznyak says.

“This development will mean that the systematic violation of intellectual property rights will result in sites providing access to stolen content being blocked forever.”

Putting operators of torrent and similar sites on notice, Zheleznyak issued a stern warning.

“I would like to warn those who are still abusing piracy: you have until May 1 to try to and enter into constructive dialogue with rightsholders. They are open to cooperation,” he said.

“Our common goal is to ensure that all work is adequately rewarded and that the benefit from successful books, music and wonderful computer programs is enjoyed by those who created them, and not those who stole them. If [site owners] are not interested in legal business, the response of the state will become quite obvious.”

Russia’s first attempt at site blocking legislation failed to produce the apocalyptic conclusion many predicted. Only time will tell what the results of these latest tweaks will mean for local sites.

The blockade of the Pirate Bay by UK ISPs is causing trouble for CloudFlare customers. Several websites have been inadvertently blocked by Sky because a Pirate Bay proxy is hosted behind the same IP-addresses. In a response, CloudFlare threatened to disconnect the proxy site from its network.

454924.png

Like any form of censorship web blockades can sometime lead to overblocking, targeting perfectly legitimate websites by mistake.

This is also happening in the UK where Sky’s blocking technology is inadvertently blocking sites that have nothing to do with piracy.

In addition to blocking domain names, Sky also blocks IP-addresses. This allows the site to stop https connections to The Pirate Bay and its proxies, but when IP-addresses are shared with random other sites they’re blocked too.

This is happening to various customers of the CDN service CloudFlare, which is used by many sites on the UK blocklist. Every now and then this causes legitimate sites to be blocked, such as CloudFlare customers who shared an IP-address with Pirate Bay proxy ilikerainbows.co.uk.

Although the domain is merely a redirect to ilikerainbows.co, it’s listed in Sky’s blocking system along with several CloudFlare IP-addresses. Recently, the CDN service received complaints from users about the issue and alerted the proxy owner.

“It has come to our attention that your website — ilikerainbows.co.uk — is causing CloudFlare IPs to be blocked by SkyB, an ISP located in the UK. This is impacting other CloudFlare customers,” CloudFlare wrote.

The CDN service asked the proxy site to resolve the matter with Sky, or else it would remove the site from the network after 24 hours.

“If this issue does not get resolved with SkyB though we will need to route your domain off CloudFlare’s network as it is currently impacting other CloudFlare customers due to these blocked IP addresses.”

cfemail
The operator of the “Rainbows” TPB proxy was surprised by Sky’s overbroad blocking techniques, but also by CloudFlare’s response. Would CloudFlare also kick out sites that are blocked in other countries where censorship is common?

“What do they do when Russia starts blocking sites under their system? Are they going to kick users off CloudFlare because there’s a Putin meme that the Russians don’t like?” Rainbows’ operator tells TF.

Instead of waiting for the domain to be switched off by CloudFlare he reverted it back to the domain registrar’s forwarding services. The main .co domain still uses CloudFlare’s services though, as does the official Pirate Bay site.

This is not the first time that CloudFlare customers have been blocked by mistake. Earlier this year the same thing happened to sites that shared an IP-address with The Pirate Bay. At the time we contacted Sky, who informed us that they do all they can to limit collateral damage.

“We have a process in place to monitor requested site blocks to limit the chances of inadvertently blocking sites, and in addition to this if we are advised by a site owner or Sky customer that a site is being inadvertently blocked we take the necessary steps to remove any unintended blocks,” a Sky spokeswoman said.

In addition to Sky we also contacted CloudFlare about the issue multiple times this year, but the company has yet to reply to our inquiries.

It’s clear though that despite cheers from copyright holders, website blocking is not all rainbows and unicorns. Without any significant change to Sky’s blocking setup, more of these inadvertent blocks are bound to happen in the future.

Less than 24 hours after the site moved over, the Isle of Man Registry has revoked the new domain name of KickassTorrents. Continuing the domain shuffle the popular torrent site will now move to the Costa Rica based domain name, Kat.cr.

0f4ceb491bb67f8d4d7e17940.png

Since KickassTorrents (KAT) became the most visited torrent site on the Internet, various anti-piracy groups have been keeping a close eye on the site’s movements.

So when the KAT team announced a move to the new KickassTorrents.im domain yesterday, it’s likely that several copyright holders sprang into action.

The new domain belongs to the Isle of Man authorities and wasn’t an ideal choice for the torrent site since the local registry employs a “zero tolerance” policy towards copyright infringement.

Just a few hours after the switch the domain was taken down, forcing the KAT team to prepare a new move, this time to the Costa Rican .cr TLD.

“We have been seized by the Isle of Man domain registry. The new domain will be Kat.cr,” KAT admin Mr. Pink informs TF, adding that the new kat.cr domain is expected to go live soon.

It’s unclear if any copyright holder group or groups filed an official dispute, but the IM Registry confirms that the site violates its terms.

“The domain was in breach of the .im rules and has accordingly been revoked. I cannot correspond any further in relation to this domain name,” an IM registry spokesperson tells TF.

The KAT team wasn’t completely unprepared and has several domain names in reserve just in case. And so the Whac-a-Mole continues for now, until the site docks in a safe haven.

While the Isle of Man registry was quick to take action, others including the Icelandic .IS and the Swedish .SE registry will not revoke any domain names without a court order.

TF reached out to the .CR registry to find out what their policies are regarding domain name revocations, but at the time of publication we were yet to receive a response.

KickassTorrents, the largest torrent site on the Internet, has switched to a new domain name. Starting today the site will serve its torrents from KickassTorrents.im, an Isle of Man TLD. The site's operators haven't provided a specific reason for the change, but if the domain remains online it may improve the site's accessibility.

47df0ae217fe581e47.png

With millions of unique visitors per day KickassTorrents (KAT) has become the most-used torrent site on the Internet, even beating the almighty Pirate Bay.

Over the years KAT has moved from domain to domain on a few occasions. First to evade law enforcement and pressure from the entertainment industries, and later as a yearly ‘tradition.’

Continuing this domain shuffle the site moved to the Somalian .so TLD earlier this year, but this domain name was soon suspended forcing the site to switch back to Kickass.to.

Starting today, KAT is redirecting to yet another domain name. The site is now serving its pages from the Isle of Man TLD KickassTorrents.im.

Wondering whether the site may have run into issues with the .to registry we contacted the KAT team for further details. We were told that the change was “planned” and not a response to any registry problems.

“The domain name change is a planned move which KickassTorrents does every six months. Nothing special,” the KAT team tells TF.

The.to domain name is currently redirecting and remains available, so the site can switch back if needed.

The site’s operators gave no particular reason why they chose the .im domain name, or if it’s considered a safe haven.

Commenting on the prominent move, the IM Registry informs us that they can’t respond to individual cases. The registry doesn’t suspend or terminate domain names proactively. Instead, possible disputes are reviewed by a representative of the local Government.

However, the organization stresses that it has a “zero tolerance” policy regarding copyright infringement.

“… each case is reviewed separately by the Designated Official within the Isle of Man Government. It should be noted though that we have a zero tolerance policy on copyright infringement,” a IM Registry spokesperson says.

Potential registry troubles aside, in the short-term the domain change will also have positive consequences in terms of accessibility. For example, the site will become accessible again in most countries where it has been blocked previously.

In addition all the URLs that were blocked by Google through DMCA notices, nearly 2 million, will become accessible again under the new domain. This also means that Google’s new downranking algorithm will be bypassed, at least for a while.

In recent months many “pirate” sites have lost a significant amount of traffic due to Google’s new anti-piracy algorithm. So it’s not unlikely that we will see more regular domain name rotations in the future.

Staff from four of the UK's most popular cinema chains have been given cash rewards for hindering the work of suspected movie pirates. Eleven individuals stepped in to interrupt nearly a dozen so-called 'camming' incidents on movies including Fifty Shades of Grey and The Theory of Everything. The interventions led to four arrests but things don't always go to plan.

While the Internet provides an unrivaled distribution mechanism for illicit digital goods, cinemas themselves are often depicted as the front line against pre-release piracy.

Just as the latest blockbusters air for the first time to an eager public, in their midst are individuals who aim to record movies and place them online for the enjoyment of others. And even as discerning consumers seek out pristine high-definition content, third-rate ‘cammed’ copies of movies are still gobbled up online.

In an effort to mitigate the number of titles that end up on the Internet from UK sources, the Hollywood-funded Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT) promotes the Take Action initiative. In place since 2006, this anti-piracy scheme is funded by UK film distributors via the Film Distributors’ Association (FDA) and encourages local cinema staff to catch ‘cammers’ in the act.

In its latest report, FACT says that staff from four of the UK’s largest cinema chains – Cineworld, Odeon, Vue and Showcase cinemas – stepped in during the past six months to interrupt those suspected of recording movies including The Hunger Games, Fifty Shades of Grey and The Theory of Everything.

In all 11 cinema employees were involved in a total of 11 incidents. Police reportedly attended on all occasions, leading to four cautions and three arrests.

For their efforts the cinema staff pictured right were invited to a ceremony hosted by Universal Pictures where they were presented with certificates and cash rewards. The precise amounts aren’t being released but the maximum is £500, down from the £700 offered during 2012.

While the cash amounts have certainly dwindled over the past three years, FACT reports that for a limited time more money is on the table. Any cinema staff who prevent and report unauthorized recording between 20th April and 30th June 2015 can expect to get paid a maximum of £1000.

“FACT’s strategy, funded by the film distributors and put into action by cinema staff across the UK, seeks to identify and prevent the initial recording that seeds piracy globally,” says FACT Director General Kieron Sharp.

“We continue to work together with UK cinema operators to support the success of the cinema experience and to allow continued investment by FACT’s members in exciting entertainment for all audiences.”

Despite the successes, the number of incidents in the current reporting period is up on the previous set of figures published last year.

Stats released in September 2014 reveal that there were seven “incidents”, all of which were attended by the police. In five incidents the alleged cammers accepted police cautions, with just one incident leading to an arrest. Nine cinema staff picked up rewards.

During the reporting period April 2013 to December 2013, a dozen alleged cammers of major movies were spotted in UK cinemas resulting in five arrests but no prosecutions. A total of 15 cinema workers picked up rewards.

Although groups like FACT have a vested interest in publicizing the negative fates of alleged cammers, those with less than favorable outcomes are largely avoided. The most recent involved the November 2013 arrest and early 2014 trial of a man accused of attempting the world’s first in-cinema 3D recording of the movie Gravity. It didn’t go well.

The case fell apart, with the judge commenting that “It ought to have been absolutely clear there was no legal basis for it.” Although the defendant, a Birmingham-based student, did enter a cinema with camera equipment, he did not record a moment of the film. Nevertheless, he was reported by cinema staff who called in the police. It’s not clear whether any reward was paid in that case.

Also of interest is a December 2014 incident when staff at a Cineworld cinema dialed the national 999 emergency number after spotting a group of 12-year-old girls with iPhones and iPads at a showing of The Hunger Games, a movie mentioned in the most current rewards report.

After a police search at the scene turned up nothing incriminating the girls were allowed back in. However, the teens waited outside, reportedly in tears, until their parents came to pick them up. It is not clear whether any cinema staff were given a reward for this incident either.

While a little extra cash will no doubt be welcomed by some cinema staff and effective hindering of real pirates greatly appreciated by the studios, there is always a risk that the money available will cloud judgement. Nevertheless, police seem ever more willing to get involved.

Documents previously obtained by TorrentFreak revealed that in 2008 there were 50 UK camming incidents, with police attending on just two occasions. If current figures are to be believed, in today’s climate they are almost guaranteed to respond.

MPAA chief Chris Dodd has urged theater owners and customers alike to support WhereToWatch, a "one-stop shop" designed to quickly guide audiences to legal content. Following its launch everyone could access the resource but perhaps fittingly, users outside the U.S. now need a VPN to receive advice.

At the same time as the Hollywood studios complain endlessly about piracy, the counter argument that they simply haven’t done enough to make content available legally online persists.

Without a similarly complex system of release windowing and geo-restriction, the music industry has largely overcome those obstacles. Meanwhile, however, Hollywood appears largely hamstrung by its own business model, leaving itself open to criticism that it hasn’t done enough to provide legal alternatives to torrent and streaming sites.

In an attempt to dispel claims that content simply isn’t available, the MPAA came up with WhereToWatch, a searchable database listing where movies and TV-shows can be watched legally. Due to poor coding the site initially proved impossible for Google and Bing to index, a situation that has improved somewhat since last November.

Yesterday during a speech at CinemaCon, MPAA chief Chris Dodd again urged theater owners and customers alike to spread the word that in order in to protect the industry and its workers, consumers need to access content from legal resources.

“That’s why we at the MPAA created WhereToWatch.com – a one-stop shop, guiding your audiences to content quickly, simply, and – most importantly – legally. And if what they’re looking for is online, WhereToWatch.com will show which sites and at what prices that film is available,” Dodd said.

“On a broader level, this effort is also a crucial recognition of the changing technological landscape, and the need to continue evolving to meet the demands of our consumers,” he continued.

“That will mean finding new ways to enable audiences to see movies where and how they want, while maintaining the magic and unrivaled appeal of the theater-going experience that has been this industry’s driving force for well over a century.”

But while recognizing that consumers should be able to see content at a time and place of their choosing – a major complaint that has persisted for well over a decade – consumers wanting to find out where to watch that content legally are also faced with a dilemma.

Since its triumphant launch in November last year, the operators of WheretoWatch have now chosen to give it the same treatment that Hollywood bestows on its movies – by geo-restricting it.

2697110a5.png

For the hundreds of millions of citizens outside the United States who are also expected to consume film and TV content legally, the above message is nothing less than they’ve come to expect. Free and equal access to content is not something the major studios and their distributors are good at, and that is now reflected by the very resource that former senator Dodd spent so long championing yesterday.

But never fear. Thanks to the wonders of tunneling technology, last evening TF was able to find a VPN exit node in Seattle that enabled us to sneak past the MPAA guard dogs. Once on WhereToWatch.com we were able to search for a number of films and find out where we could obtain them legally. The irony was headache inducing.

Overall it’s a ridiculous situation. The music industry largely managed to solve these issues years ago but for as long as users are forced to jump through hoops to obtain or even learn about the availability of legal content (not to mention waiting for extended periods, Australian style), piracy will persist.

And when other MPAA strategies such as site-blocking and “three strikes” systems are already being exported to all corners of the globe at huge expense, one has to wonder why the obvious solution isn’t being taken first.

External link removed and uploaded to the site

From what i have read it is just a place holder channel (may not be around too long), the license holder is BT

I hope it lasts for your sake buddy, i know you enjoying your fishing b3de67cb7c52.gif

Is it Angling TV steve ?

Angling TV (UK) Eurobird - 28A - 11390 - V - 27500 - 2/3 Sky UK epg 457

62b1d119c6090.jpg

rupert can you add a couple of photos to your post with a piece of paper with your username on as per the rules here http://linuxsat-support.com/showthread.php?t=21438

thanks

Should The Pirate Bay be allowed to carry on business as usual while using domain names under Swedish control? That's the argument the Stockholm District Court will consider next week following a demand from the prosecutor that the two .SE domains be disabled or placed under government control.

Some of the key strategies employed by anti-piracy groups around the world involve attacking the infrastructures of so-called pirate sites.

Pressuring hosting companies to cut off sites is one of the oldest and perhaps easiest method of disrupting activities, but finding a new host – even for the most blatant of infringers – is usually countered in a few hours. It’s a nuisance, but one that can be handled relatively easily.

Blocking domains at the ISP level presents more of a problem for sites but actually seizing a domain or rendering it entirely useless really takes things to the next level. It’s a strategy being actively pursued in a number of cases, most recently by the RIAA in an important case against MP3Skull reported here yesterday.

Next week in a separate action, a Swedish court will be required to decide whether The Pirate Bay will be allowed to keep control of two of its most important domains.

ThePirateBay.se (the site’s main domain) and PirateBay.se (a lesser used alternative) are being targeted by Prosecutor Fredrik Ingblad, the man behind the now-famous operation that took the site down in December.

Filed back in 2013 at the District Court of Stockholm, the motion targets Punkt SE, the organization responsible for Sweden’s top level .SE domain.

Ingblad’s position is that since The Pirate Bay has been deemed an illegal site, its domain names are assisting in those crimes and should be subject to action, just like a tool used in any other crime

In a case against both the .SE registry and former Pirate Bay operator Fredrik Neij, Ingblad wants the Court to order the domains to be forfeited.

“That is, in practice, that the state should take them over, or at least that .SE should not rent them out again, Ingblad says.

In parallel The Pirate Bay is also facing its first web blocking action in Sweden. Last November, Universal Music, Sony Music, Warner Music, Nordisk Film and the Swedish Film Industry filed a lawsuit against Swedish service provider Bredbandsbolaget. The ISP intends to fight the demand.

In the meantime the blocking case is certainly one to watch, with Punkt SE CEO Danny Aerts framing the action as unique in Europe.

“There are no previous cases of states suing a registry for abetting criminal activity or breaching copyright law,” Aerts notes.

As the battle over Kim Dotcom's fate continues, the entrepreneur was back in court today appealing the decision not to delay a June extradition hearing. But while Dotcom enjoyed support from a reported 10-strong legal team, former Megaupload colleague Finn Batato appeared lawyerless amid an application for legal aid.

c1b5664e4f694fdcb0aa.jpg

The now three-year cases of Kim Dotcom versus the New Zealand and United States governments have developed into a massive legal grind.

Almost every adverse decision affecting either side finds itself subjected to appeal wherever possible, with neither of the opposing parties prepared to concede defeat.

For Dotcom, the purposes of the battles are obvious. While trying to recoup as much of his seized wealth as possible, the Megaupload founder is determined to avoid extradition to the United States where he faces the largest copyright-focused case in history.

On four occasions the German-born businessman has succeeded in having his extradition hearing delayed but last month his luck appeared to have run out. With a June 2015 hearing looming, Dotcom’s legal team asked the North Shore District Court for an adjournment until October, claiming that the time remaining was not enough to prepare for such a complicated case.

2fb9e6e7e0d1b1c39f0.jpg

In the event the court refused to grant a delay to a hearing that will decide whether Dotcom and co-defendants Mathias Ortmann, Finn Batato and Bram van der Kolk should be sent to the United States to stand trial. The decision led to Dotcom’s lawyers applying for a judicial review.

This morning the parties were back in court yet again, arguing that a four-month delay is necessary in order for Dotcom and his associates to prepare their cases. Led by top lawyer Ron Mansfield, the High Court welcomed the German’s legal team to hearing set to last two days

At least for now, Dotcom’s cash situation doesn’t appear to be hindering his defense. According to 3News the German had a 10-strong legal team behind him this morning. The same could not be said about Megaupload co-defendant Finn Batato, however.

342b6340afed8ff03ec0006.jpg

A fellow German and former chief marketing officer at Megaupload, Batato arrived at the High Court this morning without a lawyer in tow. Famously filmed tearing around the Nürburgring circuit with Dotcom and racing driving Kimi Raikkonen, Batato told the court he would be representing himself.

After allowing Batato to move from the public gallery to sit among Dotcom’s lawyers, the Court heard that Batato had made an application for legal aid, a system of government funding designed to ensure people aren’t denied justice because they can’t afford a lawyer.

Grant Illingworth, QC, a 30-year legal veteran with more than 30 Court of Appeal cases under his belt, argued that the complexity of the extradition and Batato’s legal position meant that the hearing should be delayed.

“Mr Batato is waiting on a legal aid application. He has no lawyer and won’t have one unless legal aid is granted,” he said.

According to NZHerald, Illingworth told the Court that not enough information had been supplied relating to how charges from the US matched with crimes under New Zealand law .

“We’re in a hopeless position as far as complying with the timetable… we can’t comply with it,” he said.

If the appeal is successful it will be the fifth time that the extradition hearing has been delayed since the now-infamous Megaupload shutdown of 2012. In the meantime Dotcom awaits a decision on whether an undisclosed dangerous driving offense will affect his residency in New Zealand.