VPN allows users to create a private network across a public network. This way, the connection allows them send and receive data in public, privately.
Benefits of using a VPN include an increase in security and privacy, as well as functionality and management. In certain cases, using a VPN can slow the connection down. But to those who wish to have the benefits of using a VPN, a slight lag in speed is a trade they have to take.
To a number of people, they use VPN to circumvent their country's restriction. Other people use VPN so their government won't be able to know what they are browsing.
As for the latter, this is why a number of movie companies is suing LiquidVPN, because of its "no log" policy.
For privacy-concerned users, VPN that records no log is the VPN they have to choose. But those movie companies have an eye on LiquidVPN because the VPN provider is almost encouraging online piracy.
That according to a lawsuit filed with the Florida District Court by dozens of movie production companies.
Using VPN is common, and people may also use Tor to remain untraceable when using the web.
While in some cases, what people do when using those services can be questionable, legally or ethically, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are similar to VPN companies, as they need to be neutral.
But LiquidVPN's business model and aggressive marketing angered the movie production companies.
In this case, LiquidVPN was not shy in encouraging its users to access "High Quality Popcorn Time Streams," which is like client for torrent with an integrated video player.
The VPN also boasted itself as "the best VPN for torrenting," and that it allow users to "unblock ISP banned streams," which is otherwise restricted due to copyright takedown requests.
Because of this, the movie production companies think that LiquidVPN is a "safe harbor" for those who wish to circumvent the U.S. copyright law called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA.
Furthermore, LiquidVPN lacks the ability to forward notices to users who downloaded infringing content.
In other words, the movie production companies accuse that LiquidVPN with its no log policy is explicitly glamorizing all such "illegal" possibilities
While the companies with their claim is not a valid excuse, the companies went to great length because the VPN provider didn't show up in court.
Neither LiquidVPN's representatives or its lawyers appear in court.
This is why the plaintiffs are pushing a motion for a default judgment to be granted.
Together, the movie production companies are asking $9,900,000 for the maximum statutory damage, which account to $150,000 for each of the 66 works listed in the complaint.
Additionally, $1,650,000 has been sought against LiquidVPN for "secondary liability as to DMCA violations."
The list of demands extends for LiquidVPN to permanently suspend accounts of repeat infringers, dismissing their "no log" policy.
Following the news, LiquidVPN's website went dark and unreachable.
