News: File Sharing News

TorrentFreak News Article Targeted by Dubious ‘DRM Circumvention Complaint

Sun, 22 Aug 2021 21:07:23 +0000

The American Society of Composers has asked Google to remove hundreds of URLs from its search results. The flagged pages are accused of 'circumventing DRM' but the anti-piracy outfit casts its net too wide. One of the reported links points to a TorrentFreak news article about a DRM circumvention lawsuit.

At TorrentFreak, we have written hundreds of articles about dubious takedown notices. Today, we find ourselves at the center of another one.

Earlier this week the ‘American Society of Composers’ sent a series of “DRM Circumvention” complaints to Google, acting on behalf of the Video Industry Association of America.

These notices are similar to standard DMCA takedown requests but focus on content that violates the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision. And there’s another important distinction. Unlike normal takedown notices, there is no option to appeal a wrongful accusation.

Irreversable DRM Circumvention Takedowns

Whether the site operators agree with the takedowns or not, they are generally irreversible. The DMCA doesn’t prescribe a takedown and counter-notification scheme for these notices and Google previously confirmed that it doesn’t have an official appeal process either.

This puts the targets of these recent notices at a severe disadvantage. That includes TorrentFreak, as one of our news articles was reported as well. Not once, but in four separate takedown requests.

The news article in question covers legal developments in the lawsuit against Blu-Ray ripping software DVDFab, which dates back five years ago. However, the American Society of Composers sees something else.

“These links provides the circumventive measures to download the copyrighted video or audio content by bypassing the copyright protection of streaming services including Netflix, Disney+, HBO, Amazon Prime, Hulu, YouTube, Dailymotion, Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music etc,” their takedown notice reads.

Google Takes No Action

When we started writing this article, it appeared that the article was indeed removed from search results but, on closer inspection, it’s still listed. Whether we missed it the first time around or whether Google stepped in is not clear.

Needless to say, we don’t like to see our articles removed from search engines based on inaccurate claims. Especially when there’s no formal appeal process, but luckily no action is needed from our end.

Several other ‘non-news’ URLs were removed from the search results. These include DVDFab reviews and various sites that show how people can get a free copy or crack for the software.

If these sites disagree with the takedowns, they can try to reach out to the copyright holder and ask them to retract their claim. However, the “Video Industry Association of America” has no presence on the Internet at all.

The same is true for the American Society of Composers. This sounds a lot like the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, better known as ASCAP, but that organization has no connections to the movie industry.

At this point, we’re not even sure if these organizations exist. That’s something affected sites could bring up in counternotice, if only that was an option.

TorrentFreak News Article Targeted by Dubious ‘DRM Circumvention Complaint

Hollywood Wins Injunction To Shut Down Pirate IPTV Operations, Disable Domain Names

Sat, 21 Aug 2021 22:42:14 +0000

A coalition of Hollywood studios, with the addition of Amazon and Netflix, has obtained an injunction to restrain Jason Tusa, the alleged operator of Altered Carbon, Area 51, and several other pirate IPTV services. Tusa previously agreed not to operate unlicensed platforms but reportedly breached that agreement. A court has now agreed that the platforms should be shut down and their domain names disabled.

Early July in a California court, Warner Bros., several Universal companies, Amazon, Columbia, Disney, Netflix, Paramount, Sony, and other content creators filed a lawsuit against Jason Tusa, the alleged operator of Altered Carbon, Area 51, and other pirate IPTV services.

According to the complaint, Tusa is a serial offender. Last year his Area 51 service was shut down following a cease-and-desist issued by the Alliance For Creativity and Entertainment (ACE). A pending settlement agreement included a clause that Tusa couldn’t launch or be involved with any similar services.

After the apparent demise of Area 51 but in advance of the settlement being finalized, it’s alleged that Tusa launched a close copy of Area 51 called SingularityMedia, which scooped up Area 51’s customers. In response, ACE contacted Tusa again and demanded that the new service was shut down. It later disappeared.

In October 2020, a confidential settlement was reached, which included a clause for Tusa not to create or be involved in any other similar services. However, it’s claimed that the defendant then launched Digital UniCorn Media and another service called Altered Carbon. It appears that at this point, ACE ran out of patience and responded with the current lawsuit.

Lawsuit Demands Millions in Damages and Injunctions

Listing around 110 copyright works, the coalition of Hollywood studios, with the addition of Amazon and Netflix, allege direct and willful copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and inducing copyright infringement. They also allege a breach of contract in respect of the settlement agreement while demanding an injunction to restrain Tusa moving forward.

On July 8, the plaintiffs submitted a proposed preliminary injunction to the court, a copy of which was personally served on Tusa two days later. He was required to respond to that motion by July 19 but he failed to respond or seek an extension.

“Plaintiffs are not aware of a legitimate reason why Tusa would be unable to fulfill his obligations to this Court. Tusa was personally served with the Motion. He is familiar with Plaintiffs and their counsel from their history of negotiating a settlement,” the plaintiffs wrote in a July 26 notice to the court.

Judge Acknowledges Tusa’s Failure to Respond

In minutes dated July 28, United States District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips references the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, noting that Tusa had failed to oppose the motion by the official deadline.

On August 18, the Judge dealt with the matter based on papers filed in a timely fashion by the plaintiffs, granting the requested preliminary injunction. This means that moving forward, Tusa and other business entities will be required to comply with a set of instructions tailored to prevent further infringement.

Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction

Noting that a preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy”, the Court found that the movie studios have shown a likelihood of success in their action against Tusa, including their allegations of direct copyright infringement. The plaintiffs have also shown a need for emergency relief, with the Court finding that Tusa’s streaming platforms create financial losses to the plaintiffs and undermines their legitimate licenses.

“As Plaintiffs point out, Defendant’s activities also expand the market for infringing services, which causes further harm to Plaintiffs. This could lead to unquantifiable customer confusion and an overall diminution of value of the Copyrighted Works. Plaintiffs thus have demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable injury,” the Judge writes.

Finally, since Tusa has failed to respond to the lawsuit, the Judge further found that an injunction against Altered Carbon would be in the public interest.

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied their heavy burden of establishing they are entitled to the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction.”

Terms of the Injunction

The injunction restrains and enjoins Tusa (and all individuals acting in concert with him) from directly or secondarily infringing any of the studio’s copyright works through any means including public performance, reproduction, and/or materially contributing to or inducing infringement.

In addition, the Court has ordered action against several of Tusa’s domains by requiring Internet Domain Service BS Corp., Hostinger International, and Hosting Concepts B.V (plus any others that receive notice of the injunction) to prevent any of them from being modified, sold, transferred to another owner or deleted.

The domains are as follows: alteredcarbon.online, 2pmtoforever.com, catchingbutterflies.host, stealingkisses.me, dum.world, and twoavocados.us

All WHOIS and similar contact information at the time of receipt of the order must remain unchanged and all domain names must stay with their current registrar. Changes to domain registration records must be prevented and all must be disabled to prevent public access. All evidence that may allow the plaintiffs to identify the persons using the domains must be preserved.

Since Tusa has failed to defend the lawsuit, the clerk of the court has also entered a default against him. This means that a costly default judgment is now likely but the scale of the damages is yet to be determined.

The injunction and associated documents can be found here 1,2,3, (pdf)

Hollywood Wins Injunction To Shut Down Pirate IPTV Operations, Disable Domain Names

Promoting Popcorn Time Piracy Costs Phone Store Employee Her Job and $6,250

Sat, 21 Aug 2021 00:31:18 +0000

A federal court in Texas has ordered a former employee of a local phone store to pay $6,250 in piracy damages. The woman, who was fired, promoted the piracy app Popcorn Time to customers and also downloaded pirated content herself. The damages award is substantially lower than the $162,500 that was claimed by several movie studios.

Millions of people around the world use pirate apps on their mobile devices to stream TV-shows and movies.

This is a problem for copyright holders, which have tried to tackle the problem in recent years, both in and outside of court.

Hawaiian attorney Kerry Culpepper has been particularly active on the legal front. Representing a variety of movie companies, he has gone after users, site operators, and developers connected to Popcorn Time, Showbox, and other apps.

These legal efforts have also spilled over to more indirect targets such as Internet providers and VPN services. Even offline targets aren’t safe it seems. Last December, a former employee of a VICTRA store was sue for promoting the piracy app Popcorn Time to customers.

VICTRA Employee Promoted Popcorn Time

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the makers of the film ‘Hunter Killer’, which was later joined by four other movie companies. The filmmakers accused Ms. Boylan of downloading several films. More unusually, the rightsholders also accused her of promoting Popcorn Time to customers at the VICTRA store

“Defendant promoted the movie piracy applications to her customers to entice them to purchase particular products and thereby increase her own compensation,” the amended complaint read.

The claim was backed up by testimony from a VICTRA customer who stated that Ms. Boylan recommended and helped him to install Popcorn Time to watch free movies. This customer was sued in an earlier lawsuit and likely provided the information as part of a settlement.

After the customer pointed out Ms. Boylan the filmmakers did some further research which showed that the IP-address connected to her Verizon subscription had been repeatedly used to download pirated movies.

Filmmakers Demand $162,500

When VICTRA found out about the allegations, Ms. Boylan was terminated as an employee. However, the movie studios were not done yet and also demanded a large sum in piracy damages.

After Ms. Boylan failed to respond in court, the filmmakers requested a default judgment asking for $150,000 in copyright infringement damages and another $12,550 for violations of the DMCA.

In a recent order, U.S. District Court Judge Frank Montalvo agrees that the copyright holders are entitled to damages. However, the demands are too high and the final verdict is substantially lower.

“Several factors suggest a somewhat lower award of statutory damages,” Judge Montalvo writes, adding that “the facts do not establish Defendant’s direct infringement extended beyond personal consumption.”

Ms. Boylan’s downloads for personal use are not the biggest issue, according to the court. What weighs stronger is that the defendant promoted Popcorn Time in a sales pitch, for her own benefit.

$6,250 Will Suffice

All in all, however, the court doesn’t believe that the movie companies were substantially harmed by any of these activities.

“Defendant’s contributory infringement is somewhat more serious as it likely caused more lost revenue than her direct infringement and was done for her own profit. Even so, the total harm to Plaintiffs is unlikely to be substantial,” the order reads.

Instead of the requested $162,500 in damages, the court rules that $6,250 is sufficient in this matter. An additional award of $10,680 in attorney’s fees and costs brings the total due to $16,930.

The significantly reduced damages amount saves the defendant from potential lifelong debt. However, Judge Montalvo stresses that the amount is probably high enough for her to learn a lesson.

—

A copy of the order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Frank Montalvo is available here (pdf)

Promoting Popcorn Time Piracy Costs Phone Store Employee Her Job and $6,250

Bungie Sues Elite Tech Boss, Lavicheats & VeteranCheats For Copyright Infringement

Sat, 21 Aug 2021 00:28:28 +0000

Bungie has filed three new lawsuits against business entities and individuals that allegedly developed and distributed cheat software for the popular multiplayer game Destiny 2. The developer says that the defendants' copyright infringements, including those under the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, undermine its business and the experiences of customers.

Game developer Bungie is continuing its legal battle against businesses and individuals who develop and distribute cheats for its popular multiplayer game Destiny 2.

Last month the company filed a lawsuit in a California district court targeting people behind the Ring-1 cheating operation and in a Washington court yesterday, filed three more lawsuits targeting three additional cheat distributors.

Bungie vs. Elite Boss Tech

According to the complaint, Elite Boss Tech and 11020781 Canada Inc. are Canadian corporations operating out of Montreal, Quebec, and are both involved in the Wallahx.com website, with the former acting as operator and the latter handling payments and finances.

Bungie says defendant Daniel Fagerberg Larsen (aka ‘Gokke’) lives in Denmark and is an owner of the Wallhax site, Elite Boss Tech, and 110 Canada. Robert James Duthie Nelson of Canada is said to be an owner of the same entities.

Several other individuals are listed as John Does since Bungie doesn’t yet know their true identities. It lists their online handles, roles and presumed locations as follows:

Slytiger (Wallhax admin, customer service), Badger (developer/coder), Luzypher (customer support/moderator, Netherlands), GoodMan (reseller, China), Yimosecai (cheat seller, China), Riddell (moderator, Wallhax business operator), piskubi93 (reseller, China).

The Wallhax cheat (available from defendants’ websites Wallhax.com, ArtificialSensei.com, SecureAC.io, SecureCheat.xyz, SecureCheats.net, CODHax.com, GainOSaurusHax.com, CryptoCheats.com, and PrivateCheatz.com) consists of two components – the ‘ESP Hack’ and the ‘Aimbot’, both of which provide players with a competitive advantage by circumventing Bungie’s cheat detection measures.

Sometime in June, the Destiny 2 cheat was removed from the Wallhax cheat status page and the term ‘Destiny 2’ was added to the forum’s profanity filter. However, Bungie says the cheat is still available.

Bungie says the defendants infringed its rights in multiple ways. They released ‘sizzle reels’ to market the cheat using Destiny 2 artwork and developed software to hook into copyrighted Destiny 2 code thereby producing an unlicensed derivate work. They illegally downloaded Destiny 2 in violation of the company’s licensing terms and willfully distributed copyright infringing code.

Bungie further alleges that the defendants derived income from racketeering activity and obtained property from Bungie under false or fraudulent pretenses and committed criminal copyright infringement. The defendants therefore laundered money in connection with their cheat sales.

In addition, Bungie alleges the defendants circumvented technological protection measures under the DMCA, violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and by breaching Bungie’s licensing terms, are liable for breach of contract. Bungie alleges that the defendants interfered with the contractual relationships between the developer and its customers, violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and engaged in a civil conspiracy.

Bungie requests an injunction, a destruction order, and millions in damages.

The complaint can be found here (pdf)

Bungie vs. Kunsal Bansal (Lavicheats.com)

The second complaint filed in Washington targets defendant Kunsal Bansal (aka Lavi) who is said to reside in Bathinda, India. He is the reported operator of Lavicheats.com.

The complaint also lists three John Does, identified only by their online handles and roles – Maximus, Alfred/ShaktiMaan, and Eivor/Oracle – all of whom provide cheat support and in two cases, promote the cheats on other platforms.

“In addition to cheats or hacks for Destiny 2, Defendants offer cheating software for use in connection with numerous other games from other game developers, including but not limited to Apex Legends, Overwatch, Call of Duty, Rainbow Six, League of Legends, Fortnite, Rust, and Valorant,” the complaint reads.

According to Bungie, Lavicheats’ software gives players a competitive advantage by offering an ‘aimbot’ and tools that provide extra ammo and other features.

The developer says the defendants trafficked in circumvention devices contrary to the DMCA and committed contributory copyright infringement by intentionally inducing the direct infringement of Lavicheat users who “copy, reproduce, adapt, and/or create derivative works from Bungie’s copyrighted works” when they install and use the cheat software.

The complaint further alleges vicarious copyright infringement because the defendants have the ability to curtail cheat users’ infringing activities but refuse to take the necessary steps.

Finally, Bungie alleges trademark infringement and unfair competition related to the unlicensed use of Destiny marks, violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, interference with contractual relationships, and unjust enrichment at Bungie’s expense.

Again, the developer demands an injunction, the destruction of all technology in breach of the DMCA, and millions in damages.

The complaint can be found here (pdf)

Bungie vs. VeteranCheats.com

The final complaint targets VeteranCheats.com and several John Does identified by their online handles – website owner Blaze, Knorr, and John McBerg. They are collectively accused of developing, selling and distributing cheats for Destiny 2 that give players a competitive advantage via use of an ‘aimbot’ and other tools to provide unlimited ammunition and unlimited lives.

This activity has a detrimental effect on legitimate players of Destiny who complained that the cheats ruined the game to the point that they considered abandoning the game or actually did so.

Bungie’s claims of copyright infringement center around the defendants’ copying or reproducing Destiny 2, reproducing its artwork, and creating derivative works, including by modifying Destiny 2’s performance and screen displays.

“Defendants’ users also infringe Bungie’s copyrights when using the VeteranCheats Software to create derivative works, including by modifying Destiny 2’s performance and screen displays for themselves, in streams transmitted and uploaded through third-party services, and for other players who interact with them in both PvE and PvP modes. Defendants are liable for inducing and contributing to such infringing acts,” the complaint adds.

In common with the other two lawsuits filed yesterday, Bungie alleges circumvention of technological measures under the DMCA, trafficking in circumvention devices, breach of contract, tortious interference, and violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

The developer further demands an injunction, the destruction of all technology in breach of the DMCA, and millions in damages.

The complaint can be found here (pdf)

Bungie Sues Elite Tech Boss, Lavicheats & VeteranCheats For Copyright Infringement

Charter Patents Technology That Can Ban Piracy Devices on Its Network

Thu, 19 Aug 2021 22:51:38 +0000

Charter Communications has filed a patent application for a technology that can detect and ban rogue devices on its network. This can help to block orphan and cloned modems, which connect without permission. However, the ISP notes that the same technology can also be used to ban piracy-linked devices, such as illicit streaming boxes.

With dozens of millions of subscribers, Charter is one of the largest Internet providers in the United States.

Most people use their Internet connections for legitimate activities. However, similar to other ISPs, there are pirating subscribers as well.

These pirates are causing quite a bit of trouble for Charter. The company is involved in two lawsuits where prominent music outfits accuse it of failing to disconnect repeat copyright infringers.

The ISP previously defended itself by arguing that it can’t monitor or control how subscribers use the Internet. However, a new patent application suggests that this could change in the future.

Patent Detects Theft

The proposed patent titled “System And Method For Detecting And Responding To Theft Of Service Devices” describes a technology to ban rogue devices. The legitimacy of devices is ‘predicted’ based on information from DHCP logs, which can point to rogue activity.

This technology can be used for a wide range of purposes. It can help to ban cloned, rogue or orphan modems. These connect to Charter’s network without paying and are increasingly used by malicious actors.

“[T]hese unauthorized or illegitimate devices are being increasingly used by hackers, thieves, organized fraud rings, and other nefarious actors to launch cyber-attacks, gain remote control of devices, steal private or sensitive information, hide their true identities, or engage in other malicious activities,” Charter writes.

Banning Pirate Devices

Stopping this type of activity is in the best interest of Charter as well as the public at large. However, the patent also comes with some good news for copyright holders, as it can be used to ban piracy-related devices as well.

In recent years pirate streaming boxes and illegal IPTV devices have been selling like hotcakes. This is a problem for rightsholders, especially because these pirates can’t be tracked down easily, as opposed to torrent-based piracy.

The patent application notes that a specific set of rules could be set up to target a wide variety of illegal devices, including those that are likely linked to piracy.

“For instance, devices that associate with other perceived threats, such as video piracy, may be marked in a database for further monitoring and behavior surveillance,” the patent application reads.

“These operations may be performed in real-time or near-real time so that model scoring runs before a lease is granted by the DHCP server. These operations are also effective for devices that have already been granted a prior lease.”

Blacklisting MAC Addresses

When a device is flagged as problematic it can easily be banned from the network by putting its MAC address on a blacklist. This list is connected to the cable modem termination system, which will then ignore all flagged devices.

The patent has yet to be granted and whether Charter has concrete plans to use the system as an anti-piracy tool is unknown.

That said, it’s interesting to see that Charter is considering monitoring and blocking piracy at the network level. In theory, that could come in handy as a bargaining chip in the ongoing piracy lawsuits the company is involved in.

Below is a technical drawing of a potential implementation of the detection and blocking system. A full copy of the patent application from Charter Communications Operating is available here.

Charter Patents Technology That Can Ban Piracy Devices on Its Network

Publishers: Internet Archive’s Sales Data Demand is “Burdensome and Irrelevant”

Thu, 19 Aug 2021 22:47:52 +0000

Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley and Penguin Random House are asking a court to reject Internet Archive's request to access huge volumes of data regarding the sales performance of books. IA wants to counter the publishers' lawsuit by showing that its lending library did no harm but the publishers describe the request as not only "burdensome in the extreme" but also "irrelevant".

Last June, publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley and Penguin Random House sued the Internet Archive for copyright infringement, describing its ‘Open Library’ as operating like a pirate site.

The Internet Archive (IA) sees things differently, noting that its ‘Controlled Digital Lending’ process operates for purposes including preservation, access and research, therefore meeting ‘fair use’ standards. In parallel, IA believes its liability is limited due to the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA.

As reported last week, IA wants the opportunity to show that its digital library lending had no negative effect on the publishers’ business.

To do that, IA wants access to sales data for the 127 books listed in the lawsuit, plus data on one or more comparable works that were not available for digital lending at the same time as those works. However, the parties cannot reach a compromise so IA is now demanding access to detailed book sales performance data for all books sold since 2011.

Publishers Respond to Internet Archive’s Request

In a new response to the court, the publishers reiterate their claims that IA operates “an illegal ebook distribution service” that threatens to “destroy the legal library ebook market”. The publishers say that they have already produced detailed sales and financial data for the 127 books in the lawsuit, totaling over 670,000 rows of data in Excel.

They say that IA now wants access to data related to more than 500,000 additional books, complaining that it only wants access because the data it has obtained thus far doesn’t support its theory of no market harm.

“IA argues it is entitled to [access the data] in order to see if any evidence might exist to support the inherently incredible theory that copying entire books and distributing them to any member of the public worldwide upon demand does not compete with Plaintiffs’ sales of the same books,” the publishers’ letter reads.

“Even worse, IA’s quest rests on the palpably false theory that it can quantify the harm caused by its infringement by comparing the sales of completely different books. Books are not interchangeable widgets and marketplace performance is driven by countless indeterminate and changing facts.”

Publishers: Fourth Factor Fair Use “Misinterpreted”

The publishers say they distribute their books to millions of readers around the world through many legal channels, including by selling or licensing ebooks to library aggregators which allow library patrons to borrow ebooks on their devices for free, subject to limitations. However, they insist that IA’s argument that its lending practices do not affect the commercial performance of books misinterprets the fourth factor of the fair use analysis.

“The fourth factor looks beyond lost sales and focuses instead on the effect of the [infringing use] upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work,” and requires consideration of “not only … the market harm caused by the particular actions of the alleged infringer, but also the market harm that would result from unrestricted and widespread conduct of the [same] sort,” they write.

“Here, IA self-evidently harms Plaintiffs’ existing markets by refusing to pay the customary fees that aggregators pay to distribute the same ebooks to library borrowers. The market harm compounds as others engage in the activity, destroying the vibrant market for licensed library ebook lending that currently exists. None of the requested data, or so-called ‘comparables,’ is necessary to or even related to this category of market harm.”

Data Sought is “Not Material”, Creates a Massive Burden

The publishers say that producing sales data beyond that relating to the works in suit is not only “burdensome in the extreme” but also “irrelevant”.

They dismiss IA’s claims that there would be no burden in producing the data as “preposterous” since it would require them to pull masses of data from multiple databases in a way they would not do in the ordinary course of business. This would incur “incalculable” employee time and significant resources to compile what could amount to billions of rows of data.

In addition, the publishers say that the entire request for data rests on the false premise that books can be compared to each other and discounts events that inflate sales, such as an author dying, a book being made into a movie, or receiving a great review.

“In short, it is impossible to calculate the market harm of IA’s infringement based on the crude comparison IA proposes because there are innumerable reasons why one book sells more copies than another that have nothing to do with IA’s infringement. IA’s demand for this massive data rests on no coherent foundation. It should be denied,” they conclude.

The publishers’ letter can be found here (pdf)

Publishers: Internet Archive’s Sales Data Demand is “Burdensome and Irrelevant”

RCN Faces Yet Another Piracy Lawsuit, Now With a Site Blocking Demand

Wed, 18 Aug 2021 23:24:43 +0000

A group of movie companies is continuing its legal quest against US Internet providers. A few days ago they sued Internet provider RCN for failing to take action against allegedly pirating subscribers. The movie outfits request millions of dollars in damages, a three-strikes policy against infringers, and pirate site blocking measures.

For roughly two decades, copyright holders have been sending notices to ISPs, alerting them that subscribers are sharing copyrighted material.

Under the DMCA, providers must terminate the accounts of repeat infringers “in appropriate circumstances” but actual disconnections are relatively rare.

Many copyright holders would like to see ISPs handle things differently, something which has led to a list of lawsuits that continues to expand every year. Not just in volume – the demands have broadened over time too.

U.S.-based Internet provider RCN is no stranger to these legal battles. In 2016, the company got involved by filing a proactive lawsuit against music rights group BMG, asking the court to declare that it is not responsible for pirating customers.

That case was eventually settled but, soon after, several other music companies took the company to court again, demanding millions in piracy damages. While that case is still pending, RCN can now add another lawsuit to the list.

Another Repeat Infringer Lawsuit

A few days ago a group of movie companies filed a complaint at a federal court in New Jersey, accusing the company of failing to take action against repeat copyright infringers.

The plaintiffs include the makers of films such as The Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard, London Has Fallen, and Hellboy. The same companies filed similar lawsuits against Internet providers Grande Communications, and WOW! in recent weeks.

The allegations against RCN are pretty much identical to those against other ISPs. In essence, the company stands accused of failing to take meaningful action against repeat copyright infringers, while profiting from this inaction.

Thousands of Notices

According to the complaint, RCN received thousands of copyright infringement notices from the movie outfits but many of the affected subscribers were able to continue their pirating activities undeterred.

“Defendants failed to terminate the account and/or take any meaningful action against their subscriber at IP address 209.94.139.49 even after Plaintiffs’ agent sent over 100 Notices and Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a letter,” one example reads.

The movie companies argue that RCN’s failure to take action means that the ISP is not eligible for the DMCA’s safe harbor protection. As such, it should be held liable for the copyright infringements of subscribers.

Damages, Terminations, and Site Blocking

Similar to the other lawsuits, the plaintiffs demand millions of dollars in damages. In addition, they want RCN to disconnect all subscribers for which it receives three unique infringement notices within 72 hours.

Finally, the movie companies also request an order that requires the ISP to block all foreign piracy websites that are listed in the US Trade Representative’s annual Notorious Markets List. This includes The Pirate Bay, RARBG, Fmovies, Rapidgator, and Sci-Hub.

As mentioned earlier, “repeat infringer” lawsuits are not new but the site-blocking element certainly is. It first appeared in a bankruptcy case against Frontier a few weeks ago, and similar requests were made in the subsequent lawsuits against WOW! and Grande.

While it’s possible that some of these cases will be settled outside of court, there’s a good chance that pirate site blocking as injunctive relief will be properly tested in a US court for the first time.

—

A copy of the movie companies’ complaint against RCN Telecom Services, filed at the US District Court for the District of New Jersey, is available here (pdf)

RCN Faces Yet Another Piracy Lawsuit, Now With a Site Blocking Demand

Telegram Copyright Lawsuits Pressure Messenger To Install Anti-Piracy System

Wed, 18 Aug 2021 23:22:39 +0000

Russia's largest publisher has filed copyright infringement lawsuits against Telegram for allowing pirated copies of Stephen King and Dmitry Glukhovsky books to be distributed via the platform. The cited aim is to have Telegram blocked in Russia but according to the anti-piracy group involved in the action, the introduction of fingerprinting technology is preferred.

With in excess of 500 million monthly active users, messenging platform Telegram is a true internet giant. According to co-founder Pavel Durov, it was the world’s most downloaded app in January 2021 and is supported by a userbase that’s grown by 40% every year since its launch in 2013.

Alongside millions of regular users, Telegram is also utilized by some as a way to access pirated content. As a result, the company has been criticized by the RIAA and MPAA, made an appearance on the EU’s ‘piracy watch list‘, and been told to block pirated content or even face blocking itself.

Lawsuits Target Telegram For Facilitating Book Piracy

As Russia’s largest publisher, Eksmo-AST is well-known for its anti-piracy work, including its part in the permanent ISP block placed on giant torrent site RuTracker. The company has also targeted YouTube and Google, the latter for allegedly hosting piracy apps. It now has Telegram in its crosshairs.

On July 20, publishing companies AST and Eksmo, both part of the Eksmo-AST group, filed a pair of lawsuits against Telegram claiming that the messenger platform failed to delete infringing content.

According to Kommersant, which recently discovered the complaints, the Moscow City Court was happy to hand down a preliminary injunction, meaning that books including 11/22/63 by Stephen King and Metro 2033 by Dmitry Glukhovsky can be blocked by consumer ISPs under the orders of telecoms watchdog Roscomnadzor.

Anti-Piracy Group AZAPI Represents Eksmo-AST

Maxim Ryabyko of AZAPI says that Telegram has been removing content in response to publishers’ complaints since 2019, including 52,000 pirated books and 31 channels available in the web version of Telegram. The company has also blocked 346 channels in its iOS app according to Kommersant, plus 69 channels in Google Play’s version.

Despite these efforts, AZAPI says that not all complaints receive a positive response from Telegram so Eksmo-AST is hoping that its lawsuits will nudge the company into action. The aim is to reach a “critical mass” of court decisions against Telegram so that it falls foul of Russia’s repeat infringer laws. This could mean that Telegram finds itself completely blocked by ISPs in the country.

Interestingly, blocking is not the main goal of the Eksmo-AST/AZAPI legal action. Instead, it’s hoped that like vKontakte (Russia’s Facebook equivalent), Telegram will install fingerprinting technology that will allow the publishers to delete infringing content automatically. Telegram was previously asked to implement such a system but that proposal never got off the ground.

Can Telegram Be Blocked?

In 2018, Telegram was famously targeted for failing to hand over encryption keys to the authorities but the blocking measures failed to bring the platform down. That raises the question of whether the platform could be blocked now, should it refuse to comply with the wishes of Eksmo-AST/AZAPI.

Russia recently hinted that it has the ability to restrict access to content it deems illegal or offensive on problematic services. “Much has changed since the story with Telegram” said Alexander Khinshtein, Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Information Policy, Information Technology and Communications.

Since it appears that Telegram mostly complies with Eksmo-AST/AZAPI takedown demands a compromise may yet be reached. Whether that will result in a fingerprinting system being implemented is currently unknown but it’s clear that rightsholders want access to more powerful tools.

Telegram Copyright Lawsuits Pressure Messenger To Install Anti-Piracy System

Federal Court Orders Pirate Box Sellers To Pay US$23.6m in Copyright Damages

Tue, 17 Aug 2021 22:28:22 +0000

Bell Canada, Videotron, Group TVA and Rogers Communications have been awarded in excess of US$23.6m in copyright damages by a judge at Canada's Federal Court. The long-running case was filed against retailers involved in the distribution of set-top boxes configured to access TV content, without compensating the relevant rightsholders.

Pre-loaded set-top boxes and pirate IPTV services are a major problem for content owners and broadcasters around the world.

Through a growing number of out-of-court actions and full-blown lawsuits, media companies are trying to tackle the threat but as a case in Canada shows, these can be drawn-out affairs.

Canadian Media Companies Target Set-Top Box Retailers

In 2016, companies including Bell Canada, Videotron, Group TVA and Rogers Communications filed a copyright infringement action at Canada’s Federal Court. They complained that retailers L3D Distributing (INL3D), Morcor Computers 2000 and Ottawa Tek Corporation advertised and sold piracy-configured set-top boxes and pirate IPTV services to the public.

INL3D sold at least three models of pre-load set-top box and also offered access to a pirate IPTV service carrying in excess of 174 TV channels. The plaintiffs complained that this breached their rights in respect of at least 386 copyrighted works.

Ottawa Tek also sold pre-loaded set-top boxes and access to a pirate IPTV service, which together provided access to at least 1,408 copyrighted works. Morcor sold at least four types of piracy-configured devices and access to an unlicensed IPTV service. The company also gave demonstrations to customers on how to use various Kodi addons to access more than 300 TV channels carrying at least 1,136 copyrighted works.

The plaintiffs were awarded an interlocutory injunction in 2016 and later sought a default judgment after the defendants failed to file a defense.

Federal Court Considers Plaintiffs’ Claims

In addition to a permanent injunction, the media companies asked for a huge statutory damages award (CAD$20,000 / US$15,935) per infringed work, punitive damages (CAD$1,000,000 / US$797,455) plus a lump sum (CAD$50,000 / US$39,872) to cover some of their legal costs.

In a decision handed down by Justice Fuhrer at the Federal Court, the defendants were found to have infringed the media companies’ copyrights by making their works available to the public without consent. Additionally, the defendants were deemed to have authorized the infringement of the plaintiffs’ copyrights with respect to the streaming sites’ communication of copyrighted content to the public.

Addressing the statutory damages sought by the media companies (a total of CAD$58.6m / US$46.73m), the Judge noted that the infringements were commercial in nature and caused “serious and enduring harm” to the plaintiffs. However, the demands for CAD$20,000 (US$15,935) per infringed work in statutory damages were considered excessive when compared to previous decisions in similar cases.

Judge Hands Down CAD$29.3m (US$23.6m) Damages Award

Settling on the middle ground, Justice Fuhrer found that a CAD$10,000 (US$12,707) statutory damages award per infringed work would be appropriate against each of the defendants to a total of CAD$29.3m (US$23.37m), broken down as follows:

Finding that the plaintiffs “inherently and blatantly” disregarded the plaintiffs’ rights, the Judge also found in favor of a punitive damages award of CAD$100,000 (US$79,745) for each defendant to a total award of CAD$300,000 (US$239,236).

The no-show defendants were also ordered to pay a total of CAD$75,000 (US$59,809) towards the plaintiffs’ costs and told to abide by the terms of a permanent injunction.

The full decision can be found here

Federal Court Orders Pirate Box Sellers To Pay US$23.6m in Copyright Damages

Amazon, Facebook and Google Paid Millions to Pirates, Study Finds

Tue, 17 Aug 2021 22:25:22 +0000

A new report published by the Digital Citizens Alliance suggests that pirates sites earn more than a billion dollars in revenue per year, while pirate apps are good for another quarter. Part of the money comes from big brands such as Amazon, Facebook and Google. While Amazon appears to take the problem seriously, the report sees plenty of room for improvement at Google's end.

Most pirate sites and apps won’t survive without advertising revenue. This is why the advertising industry is seen as an important partner to combat piracy.

Major copyright holder groups hope to convince major players to stay clear from anything piracy-related to drain infringing sites of their income.

Several voluntary initiatives have been set up to facilitate this process. This includes the Trustworthy Accountability Group (TAG), an anti-piracy certification program steered by giants including Amazon, Facebook, Google, Facebook, Disney and Warner Bros.

Despite the involvement of these major players, the problem persists. A few days ago the Digital Citizens Alliance published the results of a study titled “Breaking (B)ads”, which takes a detailed look at the advertising ecosystem surrounding pirate sites and apps.

$1 Billion+ Ad Revenue for Pirate Sites and Apps

The overall conclusion is that there’s still plenty of advertising revenue going around in pirate circles. Based on data from 6,194 piracy websites and 884 piracy apps, the research estimates that pirate sites generated over $1.08 billion in ad revenue and apps added more than $259 million.

The bulk of the money is made by a small group of pirates. The five most popular sites have an average estimated advertising income of $18.3 million. For apps, this number comes in even higher, at $27.6 million.

The accuracy of these types of estimates can be debated, but it’s clear that pirate sites and apps can be very profitable. This income isn’t just coming from shady businesses either, major brands are involved as well.

Major Brands Fund Pirates

Fortune 500 companies, defined as ‘major brands’ in the research, paid the operators of pirate operators $100 million over the past year. On pirate sites, major brands fund 4% of all ads and for apps this percentage goes up to 24%.

Thus far most initiatives have focused on stopping major brands from advertising on pirate sites. That seems to work, but the problem is still prevalent in the app ecosystem.

“One in four ads on piracy apps are from well-known companies. This shift to apps comes after a concerted eﬀort over the last eight years by these brands to stop their ads from showing up on illicit websites. The emergence of piracy apps threatens to undermine this progress”

Digital Citizens Alliance, which is partly funded by the entertainment industries, commonly uses this type of research to demand tougher anti-piracy action. In the current report, it calls out several companies directly.

Amazon, Facebook and Google

The findings show that major tech companies such as Amazon, Facebook, and Google make up nearly three-quarters of all Fortune 500 company ads on pirate apps. As such, they are seen as major funders of the piracy ecosystem.

“That means these three companies are supporting these piracy operators with potentially tens of millions of dollars in advertising on piracy apps alone,” the report highlights.

Interestingly, these three companies are all part of and ‘certified’ by TAG, which strives to prevent just this. The report stresses that, through TAG, Amazon took swift action to reduce ads on pirate sites earlier this year. Google, however, presents a different story.

Research Singles Out Google

While Amazon and Facebook spend more on ‘pirate’ ads, the research report singles out Google and dedicates a separate section to the company.

“Despite having a sophisticated and dedicated program to protect advertisers and block ads to illegal publishers, Google is a significant contributor to the piracy ecosystem,” the research notes.

“Google paid pirate operators millions of dollars to place its own ads on their illicit piracy apps. Given the company’s boasts about its analytical prowess and data expertise, it seems far-fetched that Google doesn’t know how it’s spending millions of dollars”

In addition to advertising on pirate sites and apps, Google is also called out for its role as an advertising platform. Through its ad platforms, the company facilitates ad placement for third-party brands as well.

As shown above, Google’s tech role is particularly dominant on piracy apps, where Google CDN and Google Ad Tech serve more than 50% of all advertisements.

Moving Forward

This isn’t the first time that the Digital Citizens Alliance has researched the money flow to pirate services. An earlier study concluded that the pirate IPTV market generates a billion dollars a year in the United States alone.

These types of studies are meant to provide insight into the scope of the piracy issue. They are regularly cited by copyright holders in legislative discussions, and also help to put pressure on the names companies directly.

That pressure is also apparent from the closing lines on the report, which end with a Hobson’s choice.

“Ultimately, it’s up to the advertising ecosystem to determine whether it wants to allow Ad Tech companies to serve both the reputable brands and publishers and the pirate operators, or instead to demand the entities choose whether to be exclusively on the legitimate or illegitimate side of the fence.

“But after this report, turning a blind eye to the entities that facilitate funneling $1.34 billion to pirates can no longer be an option,” the report concludes.

—

A copy of the “Breaking (B)ads” report, which was prepared by Digital Citizens Alliance and piracy and advertising specialists White Bullet, is available here (pdf)

Amazon, Facebook and Google Paid Millions to Pirates, Study Finds

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – August 16, 2021

Tue, 17 Aug 2021 01:49:58 +0000

Every week we take a close look at the most pirated movies on torrent sites. What are pirates downloading? 'The Suicide Squad' tops the chart, followed by ‘Jungle Cruise'. 'F9: The Fast Saga' completes the top three.

The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only.

These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into the piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources.

This week we have two new entries in the list. “The Suicide Squad” is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on August 16 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(1)	The Suicide Squad	7.6 / trailer
2	(2)	Jungle Cruise	6.8 / trailer
3	(3)	F9: The Fast Saga	5.3 / trailer
4	(4)	Black Widow	7.0 / trailer
5	(5)	The Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard	6.3 / trailer
6	(8)	Vivo	6.9 / trailer
7	(9)	The Tomorrow War	6.6 / trailer
8	(back)	Cruella	7.4 / trailer
9	(10)	A Quiet Place Part II	7.7 / trailer
10	(…)	CODA	8.2 / trailer

Note: We also publish an updating archive of all the list of weekly most torrented movies lists.

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 08/16/2021

AdCenter Affiliate Network Closes Shop After ‘Piracy Scam’ Investigation

Tue, 17 Aug 2021 01:33:18 +0000

The Montreal-based affiliate network AdCenter has closed shop overnight. The company gives no reason for its sudden decision, which follows a few weeks after an investigation linked the outfit to one of the largest piracy-related scam operations.

Scammers have been around for centuries but, on the Internet, they can reach broader audiences than ever.

Most people are familiar with ransomware, trojans, and the prince who inherited millions of dollars. These ploys are targeted at anyone who’s willing to bite.

Scams can also be more tailored towards a specific audience. This includes people who search the web for pirated content. Malicious actors trap prospective pirates by pointing them to their own streaming portals.

We have seen these promotions in the comment sections of pirate sites but also on legitimate platforms. At the same time, scammers exploit weaknesses in reputable sites to place their ‘offers’ in Google’s top search results.

Expensive Fake Sites

The business model behind these schemes is simple and effective. Through various links and advertisements, people are lured into signing up for a website that offers ‘free’ movies, sports events, or books.

A popular variation of this scheme uses a video player that shows a short movie intro, after which people are redirected to a signup page. As part of this process, they are eventually asked to provide their credit card details to start a free trial.

After completing the registration process, subscribers indeed get access to a movie library. Unsurprisingly, the selection doesn’t include the latest blockbusters that were advertised but relatively unknown licensed films instead.

This isn’t what people were promised and many will immediately cancel their ‘free’ subscription. However, some people simply forget to do so, which results in a $49.95 subscription payment after the five-day trial ends.

The Canadian Investigation

A few weeks ago, Radio Canada’s program Décrypteurs published a detailed investigation into one of the largest pirate scam operations. The research found that a Barbados company called Hyuna International was behind more than 1,100 of these sites.

Hyuna didn’t appear to advertise its services directly, however. The company reportedly used the services of the marketing company AdCenter, which is based in Montreal. AdCenter, for its part, relies on thousands of affiliates who do the promotional work.

When the investigation came out AdCenter dismissed the allegations as false, misleading, and downright defamatory. However, Radio Canada interviewed over a dozen former AdCenter employees to confirm the misleading nature of the subscription scheme and stands behind its findings to this day.

AdCenter Closes Shop

After the initial media storm subsided, AdCenter appeared to operate as usual. However, behind the scenes, there was plenty going on and a few days ago, affiliates were informed that the “AdCenter” brand had been shut down with immediate effect.

“After careful consideration, we have decided to close the Ad-Center brand permanently. We would like to thank everyone who made Ad-Center so successful over the last 10 great years,” the email reads.

It is not clear if the shutdown has anything to do with Radio Canada’s exposé. TorrentFreak reached out to the company asking for additional information but, at the time of writing, we have yet to hear back.

The email mentions that all affiliates will be fully paid out and the AdCenter website is still up and running as well. It makes no mention of the closure but the signup link no longer works and login credentials have been deleted.

“We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you, and we wish you the best of success in your future endeavors. Ad-Center login will be removed as of today,” the AdCenter email ends.

While the AdCenter ‘brand’ has been discontinued, the parent company “Action Media” remains operational, as far as we know. Perhaps a new brand will surface soon?

For now, it is clear that AdCenter closed shop overnight and affiliates will have to find a new home. That’s pretty ironic, considering the following line (29 seconds in) from one of AdCenter’s recent advertisements.

“The networks I trusted let me down and disappeared overnight. I wasted time, money, and got no closer to my dreams.”

AdCenter Ad

AdCenter Affiliate Network Closes Shop After ‘Piracy Scam’ Investigation

Movie Studios Sue Grande Communications: Terminate Pirates, Block The Pirate Bay

Tue, 17 Aug 2021 01:26:07 +0000

More than two dozen movie companies have sued Grande Communications demanding that it should terminate BitTorrent pirates and block sites including The Pirate Bay. Evidence to support the plaintiffs' case was in part provided by the operator of torrent site YTS.

In 2017 the RIAA sued Grande Communications for failing to take meaningful action against customers who allegedly carried out more than a million BitTorrent-based infringements.

Now it’s the turn of more than two dozen movie companies to launch a legal attack against Grande on a similar basis, this time for the alleged downloading and sharing of movies including Angel Has Fallen, Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Vile and Evil, Hellboy, Rambo V: Last Blood, The HItman’s Bodyguard, and Dallas Buyer’s Club.

The list of plaintiffs contains names already familiar with filing individual lawsuits against lone sharers including movie companies Voltage Holdings, Millienniun Media, and LHF Productions.

The Lawsuit Against Grande

Filed in a Texas court late Friday, the complaint states that the plaintiffs are producers of motion pictures available for purchase both online and in physical stores. However, massive piracy of these titles on the Internet by people using BitTorrent undermines that effort, especially when ISPs like Grande fail to take action against them.

“Defendant promotes its service to download and upload large amounts of content for subscribers for ‘downloading music, streaming movies and gaming’, the complaint reads, adding that Grande charges customers based on speed of service.

According to the movie companies, Grande knew that its customers used its service to routinely download and upload their copyrights work in breach of copyright. The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs sent more than 5,800 DMCA notices to the ISP’s abuse department, which included IP address, port numbers, and times of infringement. In response, Grande “turned a blind eye” to the massive infringement.

“Defendant allowed the illegal activity because it was popular with subscribers and acted as a draw to attract and retain new and existing subscribers. Defendant’s subscribers, in turn, purchased more bandwidth and continued using Defendant’s services to infringe Plaintiffs’ Works,” it reads.

“Defendant knew that if it terminated or otherwise prevented repeat infringer subscribers from using its service to infringe, or made it less attractive for such use, Defendant would enroll fewer new subscribers, lose existing subscribers, and ultimately lose revenue.”

Tracking Evidence Supplied by Maverickeye and Torrent Giant YTS

Maverickeye is well known in multiple regions for providing evidence in smaller cases against individuals who allegedly shared content illegally using BitTorrent. In this case, the company logged the activities of a user behind IP address 66.196.3.46, concluding that the Grande customer shared an Angel Has Fallen torrent multiple times on November 26, 2021.

To support this claim, the movie companies turn to evidence handed to them as part of a settlement deal with the operator of the YTS torrent site. According to the complaint, the operator of YTS kept activity records of users who had an account there, including all of the torrent files downloaded, the IP address from where the account was accessed, plus relevant times.

The Grande subscriber behind 66.196.3.46 allegedly distributed multiple copies of the movies After, Hellboy and Angel Has Fallen. Another user, behind the IP address 24.155.189.11, reportedly distributed thousands of copies of Rambo V: Last Blood.

In response to these and other infringements, agents for the movie companies sent more than 5,800 copyright infringement notices to Grande Communications including 1,000 notices relating to The Hitman’s Bodyguard, 500 for I Feel Pretty and Hellboy, 450 notices for Angel Has Fallen, and 350 notices for Rambo V: Last Blood.

Grande Failed to Terminate User Accounts

According to the complaint, Grande is required to take “meaningful action” against subscribers in response to these notices, up to and including terminating their accounts. But in some cases, Grande even failed to pass the notices on to their customers.

“Defendant continued to provide service to the subscribers despite knowledge that its subscribers were using the service to engage and facilitate massive piracy of copyright protected Works including the Copyright Plaintiffs’,” the movie companies write.

In October 2020, counsel for the plaintiffs wrote a letter to Grande detailing their concerns while highlighting some examples of “prolific piracy behavior” by some of its subscribers. The letter stated that many of Grande’s customers used the YTS torrent site to repeatedly infringe copyrights but despite being informed of this and similar acts carried out by more than 2,500 subscribers, Grande failed to terminate repeat infringers.

Indeed, the letter shows a sample five IP addresses that were reported to Grande between 56 and 80 times each for copyright infringement, apparently without any action being taken against those customers.

The letter further went on to warn Grande that since it fails to terminate repeat infringers, it does not qualify for the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. This led to the conclusion that Grande could be held secondarily liable for any infringements carried out by its subscribers to the tune of $150,000 in statutory damages for each motion picture, $25,000 per DMCA violation, plus costs and attorney’s fees.

Grande Was Given The Chance To Avoid a Lawsuit

The letter, sent by IP lawyer Kerry Culpepper, offered Grande a chance to address the movie companies’ grievances without litigation by terminating all subscriber accounts that had received more than three DMCA notices against them, and agreeing to terminate any accounts reported in the future for infringement.

The movie companies also demanded access to Grande’s subscriber database to obtain the identities of subscribers behind IP addresses identified as infringers. Finally, the letter demanded that Grande should block torrent sites YTS, 1337x and The Pirate Bay, including their proxies.

According to the complaint, Grande “completely ignored the letter” and continued to provide service, even to subscribers identified as prolific infringers.

Plaintiffs’ Legal Conclusions, Demands

In summary, the complaint alleges that Grande’s failure to implement a repeat infringer policy motivated internet users to become subscribers so, as a result, Grande cannot rely on the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA.

According to the plaintiffs, this means Grande is liable as a contributory copyright infringer for the infringing acts of its subscribers. And, since it had actual and constructive knowledge of the infringing activity and knowingly contributed to it, any infringement was willful.

As a result, the movie companies demand an injunction to prevent the ongoing infringement of their copyright works and an order compelling Grande to suspend the accounts of any customer who receives three unique DMCA notices in 72 hours.

They also ask the court to issue an order that requires Grande to block subscribers from accessing all “websites of foreign origin” that are listed in the USTR’s ‘notorious markets‘ report.

In addition to what could be a huge multi-million dollar damages award, the movie companies also want the court to order Grande to disclose the identities of subscribers who use its service to infringe copyrights.

Late July, a broadly similar lawsuit was filed by the same movies companies against ISP WOW!

The complaint in the Grande matter can be found here (pdf), supporting documents here 1,2,3 (pdf)

Movie Studios Sue Grande Communications: Terminate Pirates, Block The Pirate Bay

Microsoft Envisions a Blockchain-Based Bounty System to Catch Pirates

Sun, 15 Aug 2021 23:34:27 +0000

A new paper published by Microsoft's research department proposes to tackle piracy with a blockchain-based bounty system titled "Argus." The system allows volunteers to report piracy in exchange for a reward. It uses the Ethereum blockchain and is transparent, practical, and secure, while limiting abusive reports and errors.

Microsoft is one of the world’s most prominent copyright holders with a vast experience in fighting piracy.

The company is part of the Software Alliance (BSA), for example, which is known to track copyright infringements both off- and online.

The BSA is also known for its piracy bounties, where it promises whistleblowers cash rewards in return for fruitful tips. This is a controversial strategy which Microsoft’s own research team hopes to improve upon.

Argus

A few days ago Microsoft’s research department published an article titled: Argus: A Fully Transparent Incentive System for Anti-Piracy Campaigns, which lays out the details of its plan.

The paper, which also received input from researchers at Alibaba and Carnegie Mellon University, suggests that an open and transparent blockchain is part of the solution. This openness is currently missing from BSA-style reporting mechanisms.

“Industrial alliances and companies are running anti-piracy incentive campaigns, but their effectiveness is publicly questioned due to the lack of transparency. We believe that full transparency of a campaign is necessary to truly incentivize people,” the paper reads.

Piracy Bounty Hunting

The article is full of technical details. We don’t strive to provide a full summary but, simply put, Argus is a transparent system built on the Ethereum blockchain that allows people to anonymously report piracy in exchange for a bounty.

Pirated content is traced back to the source through a unique watermark that corresponds with a secret code. When a pirated copy is reported, the status of the source (licensee) is changed to “accused.” The system provides an appeal option, but if that fails, the accused status changes to “guilty.”

Argus is an open system but there are various safeguards to prevent abuse. Reporting the same pirated work multiple times under different aliases is useless, for example, as that will only reduce the reward.

Low Blockchain Costs

The system relies on several checks to ensure that the system is open, while avoiding false accusations at the same time. And according to the researchers, the costs of utilizing the blockchain are relatively low.

“We effectively optimize several cryptographic operations so that the cost for a piracy reporting is reduced to an equivalent cost of sending about 14 ETH-transfer transactions to run on the public Ethereum network, which would otherwise correspond to thousands of transactions.

“With the security and practicality of Argus, we hope real-world anti-piracy campaigns will be truly effective by shifting to a fully transparent incentive mechanism,” the researchers add.

Real-World Use?

Whether Microsoft has any plans to test the system in the wild is unknown. It theoretically works with various media types including images, audio and software.

That said, it’s unclear how effective it will be. The researchers “assume” that the watermarking technology deployed is tamper-free, which isn’t always the case today.

All in all, it’s intriguing to see blockchain technology used to improve the rather old-fashioned piracy reporting campaigns. This idea isn’t completely new, however, as the South African company Custos came up with a similar idea years ago.

Microsoft’s research notes that Argus is superior to Custos’ solution as it can assess the severity of piracy and the strength of accusations. At the same time, they believe Argus is better than BSA’s campaigns because the reward payments are transparent.

The paper and the Argus system will be presented at the upcoming 40th International Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems, which will be held virtually at the end of September.

Microsoft Envisions a Blockchain-Based Bounty System to Catch Pirates

Internet Archive Wants Publishers’ Sales Data to Show Digital Library Doesn’t Hurt Sales

Sat, 14 Aug 2021 22:06:00 +0000

In June 2020, major publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley and Penguin Random House sued the Internet Archive, claiming that its Open Library is effectively a pirate site. The Internet Archive disputes this characterization and is now demanding that the publishers hand over sales data to show that its lending had little or no effect on the commercial performance of books.

In March 2020, with the world gripped by the coronavirus pandemic, the Internet Archive (IA) offered a new service to help displaced learners.

The National Emergency Library (NEL) was built on IA’s existing Open Library and initially granted access to more than a million scanned books so that people could educate themselves while in quarantine. The service was not appreciated by book publishers.

Publishers Sue IA For Copyright Infringement

In a lawsuit filed June 1, 2020, in a New York court, Hachette Book Group, Inc., HarperCollins Publishers LLC, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., and Penguin Random House LLC – all members of the Association of American Publishers – accused the Internet Archive of running a pirate site.

“Defendant IA is engaged in willful mass copyright infringement,” the complaint alleged.

“Without any license or any payment to authors or publishers, IA scans print books, uploads these illegally scanned books to its servers, and distributes verbatim digital copies of the books in whole via public-facing websites.”

With claims including direct infringement on a sample of 127 books, the publishers demanded $150,000 in statutory damages per infringement. They also claimed that IA could be held secondarily liable for infringement carried out by the library’s users.

Internet Archive Responds – Fair Use is Not Piracy

With calls from IA founder Brewster Kahle to make peace apparently ignored, IA responded to the publishers’ complaint.

The answer described IA’s ‘Controlled Digital Lending’ (CDL) process in detail, highlighting the fact that the scanned books had already been paid for by the libraries that own them and the controlled nature of the lending meant that classic ‘fair use’ purposes such as preservation, access and research had been met.

In addition, IA cited the First Sale Doctrine and the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA as affirmative defenses.

Internet Archive Wants to Prove Its Library Did No Harm

With the case having been active for more than a year, the Internet Archive now wants the court to compel the publishers to hand over information. Specifically, IA wants access to sales data that shows the commercial performance of the plaintiffs’ book titles.

“In considering fair use, one factor courts consider is ‘the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work’,” IA’s legal team writes.

“Plaintiffs claim that the Internet Archive’s digital library lending has a negative effect on the market for or value of the works. The Internet Archive disagrees, and wishes to bring forward evidence showing that lending had little or no effect on the commercial performance of the books being lent, compared to books that were not lent.”

In order to show that its library did no harm, IA says it wants to compare the commercial performance of books that were available for digital download with books that were not available for digital lending. Thus far, however, the publishers haven’t been prepared to offer data, at least to the extent requested by IA.

Broad Request For Data Denied By Publishers

IA says that in order to show that lending didn’t negatively affect sales, it needs access to information that would show the commercial performance of all of the publishers’ books, broken down since 2011. However, IA says that thus far the publishers have refused to provide any data for books outside those detailed in the lawsuit, which is not enough according to IA.

“In order to argue that the challenged library lending practice did not affect commercial performance, one needs commercial performance data not only for the books that were lent out, but also of other books that were not loaned. Without that data, the Internet Archive has nothing to compare,” the letter to the court reads.

“Plaintiffs object that data about other books would be irrelevant. They have argued that, because there are too many other factors that could affect their commercial performance, the data won’t show whether the Internet Archive’s digital library lending affected commercial performance,” it continues.

“We have no doubt that Plaintiffs will press that line of argument in cross-examination of the Internet Archive’s witnesses, but such estimates are a necessary part of litigation about alleged copyright infringement.”

Publishers: Discovery Would Be Burdensome

According to IA’s letter, the publishers insist that producing data about all of their books would be unduly burdensome since there are only 127 books listed in the complaint. However, IA says that it doesn’t necessarily need every book to conduct a comparison and would be satisfied if the publishers provided data on each of those works and data on one or more comparable works that were not available for digital lending at the same time as those works.

It appears that is not acceptable to the publishers since they insist that all books are unique.

“[P]laintiffs, who are in possession of the data one would need to do that analysis, have declined to identify books they regard as comparable — because, as discussed above, they take the position that no book is comparable to any other book,” IA explains.

“Given this refusal, Plaintiffs must produce data about all books, so that the Internet Archive can identify books it regards as comparable, and the parties can then debate, on a level playing field, whether such books are or are not comparable.”

Finally, IA insists that the data to be supplied by the publishers should show monthly commercial performance data, not just annual data. Simply supplying annual data wouldn’t be enough, since IA wants to compare performance data before and after digital lending dates. In particular, IA wants to look at the commercial performance of books during the availability of its National Emergency Library.

The Internet Archive’s letter to the court can be found here (pdf)

Internet Archive Wants Publishers’ Sales Data to Show Digital Library Doesn’t Hurt Sales

Court Orders RomUniverse to Destroy Pirated Nintendo Games and Stay Offline

Fri, 13 Aug 2021 22:51:59 +0000

A California federal court has ordered the operator of the now-defunct pirate site RomUniverse to destroy all copyright-infringing games within two weeks. The court initially denied the request for a permanent injunction but changed its position after Nintendo warned about a potential comeback of the site. The $2.1 million summary judgment still stands.

Two years ago, gaming giant Nintendo filed a lawsuit against the game download portal RomUniverse.

The website facilitated massive online copyright infringement of many popular Nintendo titles, according to the complaint filed at a California district court.

RomUniverse’s Pro Se Defense

The site’s operator, Los Angeles resident Matthew Storman, disagreed with these allegations. Without an attorney, he decided to defend himself in court. In his view, the site wasn’t breaking any laws and he asked the court to dismiss the case.

Nintendo vehemently disagreed and pointed out several flaws in RomUniverse’s defense, with which the court agreed. This meant that Storman had to face the charges, as well as millions of dollars in potential damages.

RomUniverse initially remained online. That eventually changed but last summer, after discussions with Nintendo’s legal team, the operator agreed to shut it down. The game company subsequently requested summary judgment amounting to millions of dollars as compensation for the damages it suffered.

$2.1 Million in Piracy Damages

In May 2021, US District Court Judge Consuelo Marshall ruled on the matter, largely siding with Nintendo. The court granted a $2.1 million summary judgment against the RomUniverse operator, for infringing the game company’s copyrights and trademarks.

Nintendo didn’t get everything it was after. Judge Marshall denied a permanent injunction against Storman, as Nintendo failed to show that it was suffering irreparable harm. Additionally, the fact that Storman had already shut down the site showed there was no imminent threat of further infringements.

While Nintendo was happy with the damages award, it asked the court to reconsider the denied injunction. Among other things, the company was worried that RomUniverse hasn’t shut down permanently. Mr. Storman himself admitted that the site could make a comeback in the near future.

Nintendo Gets Its Injunction

After taking a second look at the matter, Judge Marshall now sees enough grounds to issue the injunction. In an order issued late last week, the potential comeback of RomUniverse is repeatedly cited as an important factor.

“Plaintiff’s evidence demonstrates a threat of continued infringement based on Defendant’s representations that he may relaunch his website which previously contained Plaintiff’s copyrighted games. Accordingly, Plaintiff demonstrates irreparable harm warranting an injunction for Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim.”

Although Mr. Storman said that a relaunch would happen without any Nintendo titles, the court finds an injunction appropriate as the Japanese company might suffer “irreparable harm” otherwise.

Destroy All Pirated Games

The injunction specifically prohibits RomUniverse’s operator to copy, distribute, sell or even play unauthorized copies of Nintendo games. Using Nintendo’s trademarks, logo’s or names in a ‘confusing’ manner is not allowed either.

Finally, Judge Marshall also orders the destruction of all pirated Nintendo games that are still in Mr. Storman’s possession.

“Defendant shall permanently destroy all unauthorized Nintendo games or other unauthorized copies of Nintendo’s intellectual property including movies, books, and music no later than August 17, 2021,” Judge Marshall concludes her order.

—

A copy of US District Court Judge Consuelo Marshall’s order is available here (pdf)

Court Orders RomUniverse to Destroy Pirated Nintendo Games and Stay Offline

Police Visit Pirate IPTV Suppliers’ Homes to Serve Cease-and-Desist Notices

Fri, 13 Aug 2021 22:48:40 +0000

Police officers across the UK have visited the homes of people reportedly involved in the supply of pirate IPTV services. The operation, which involved the organized crime-focused Eastern Region Special Operations Unit, was carried out in conjunction with the Federation Against Copyright Theft. Those targeted were served with cease-and-desist notices.

With the start of the new Premier League season just hours away, football fans can look forward to a new season offering the best the sport has to offer. For some fans hoping to enjoy the action on TV, alternative preparations may need to be made.

Cheap access to Premier League football is one of the primary drivers for pirate IPTV uptake in the UK. These services generally offer all of the games (including 3pm kickoff matches) at a very low price but they are prone to disruption if they attract the attention of rightsholders and the authorities. That appears to be the case in respect of a few suppliers this week.

Suspected IPTV Suppliers Targeted in the UK

According to an announcement from anti-piracy company the Federation Against Copyright Theft, during the past week police units targeted several suspected suppliers of pirate IPTV services around the UK. FACT investigators were reportedly in attendance when the Eastern Region Special Operations Unit, West Yorkshire Police, and Dyfed-Powys Police delivered cease-and-desist notices to people’s homes.

“The initiative is aimed at preventing the illegal supply of IPTV streams, with investigators visiting homes in Essex, Hertfordshire, West Yorkshire and Pembrokeshire to serve notices informing suspects to cease any illegal activity with immediate effect,” the release reads.

“This latest action targeted suspects who were promoting unauthorized access to premium television content, which affects broadcasters and rights owners in the UK and worldwide, causing financial harm to the industry and the economy.”

There is no specific mention of Premier League content in the release but FACT is a close partner of broadcasters including Sky, which have a direct interest in ensuring pirated streams are disrupted whenever possible.

Relatively Low-Level Suppliers Receive High-Level Attention

All of the individuals served with a cease-and-desist notice over the past week are reportedly lower-level players in the pirate IPTV world. No specific details have been made available but it seems more than likely these were people involved in the resale of pirate IPTV subscriptions, otherwise known as resellers. Nevertheless, these people play a crucial part in the IPTV business by obtaining sales on the ground and funneling them to the large operations they serve.

West Yorkshire Police and Dyfed-Powys Police have considerable law enforcement firepower but it’s noteworthy that the operation was also supported by the Eastern Region Special Operations Unit (ERSOU), a division dedicated to tackling everything from organized crime to terrorism investigations.

The stated aim of the operation was to prevent the targets from undertaking criminal activity while deterring others from a similar path. Having ERSOU on the doorstep sends a pretty powerful message.

FACT Drives Home Fraud Message

In common with the majority (if not all) of the recent cases pursued by FACT and its broadcasting partners in respect of IPTV, the key signal is that offering or receiving TV services illegally can be prosecuted under the Fraud Act. There is no deviation following this week’s action.

“We employ a range of tactics to prevent the provision of illegal streaming. Our continuous activity targets different elements of the global piracy landscape, with consideration given to the scale of the offending to ensure effective and proportionate action is taken,” says FACT Chief Executive Kieron Sharp.

“By taking these measures we are sending a clear message. Piracy is fraud and anyone motivated by financial gain from doing this needs to know that this is a crime which will be taken seriously by Police.”

West Yorkshire Police Officer David Hayes notes that while offering pirate IPTV services can make sellers some money in the short term, when police are aware of their activities they will bring them to an end.

“People may not think they are causing harm by selling streaming services for a quick penny but if you choose to do so, you are breaking the law and there will be consequences when you are caught,” Hayes says.

“It was good to support FACT in West Yorkshire and we hope this collaboration will send out a clear message to those who think they can get away with it. We will find you.”

According to FACT and the police, more actions of a similar nature are being planned.

Police Visit Pirate IPTV Suppliers’ Homes to Serve Cease-and-Desist Notices

ThePirateBay.com Goes Up For Sale, But Renting is an Option Too

Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

ThePirateBay.com has been listed for sale this week. The domain was bought at an auction last year after The Pirate Bay team accidentally let it expire. The buyer initially planned to turn it into a legal download portal but that never got off the ground. They're now willing to let it go for $38,000, but interested parties can rent it too.

The Pirate Bay is arguably the best-known pirate site on the web.

The iconic pirate ship logo is notorious around the world and more than 18 years after it first appeared online, the site still attracts millions of visitors.

Pirate Bay Domains Expired

During most of its history, the site has operated from ThePirateBay.org domain. However, the official TPB-team also owned ThePirateBay.com and PirateBay.org. The past tense refers to the fact that ‘someone’ didn’t renew these domains last year.

The domains were never actively used but they clearly have value. They were picked up by Dropcatch.com – a service that specializes in securing ‘lapsed’ domains – and were subsequently put up for auction. PirateBay.org sold for $50,000 and ThePiratebay.com brought in a healthy $35,150.

This is a lot of money for a domain name and many people wondered what the motivation of the anonymous buyers was. Soon after PirateBay.org was sold it started promoting the ‘Torrent Man’ movie. This appeared to be a link-building stunt after which the domain was redirected to a Pirate Bay proxy service.

ThePirateBay.com followed a different path. After it was bought at auction it was parked at Sedo and monetized through an advertising feed. This isn’t uncommon for domains that have a reasonable amount of type-in traffic.

ThePirateBay.com is For Sale

This week, however, PirateBay.com was listed for sale again. The seller is asking $38,000, which is slightly more than what was paid last year.

TorrentFreak managed to track down the seller who agreed to comment on the record, provided he remains anonymous. We were interested in the decision to sell the domain but also wanted to know why he paid tens of thousands of dollars for it last year.

The decision, perhaps unexpectedly, was profit-driven. The seller – let’s call him Antonio – never planned to enter the piracy business. He merely picked it up for the traffic.

“I knew it would receive a very large volume of type-in traffic from people mistakenly typing thepiratebay.com instead of thepiratebay.org,” Antonio tells us.

Legal Download Site

Since the ‘Pirate Bay’ audience is generally interested in downloading things, Antonio hoped to turn it into a legal download site. That would bring in more revenue than a standard advertising feed.

However, Antonio never managed to get that off the ground. And since others may have a better use for it, he decided to put it up for sale again.

“I had big plans to develop a legal download site similar to softonic.com or download.cnet.com, but due to other commitments/projects, I’ve not had the time. Although it earns pretty well being parked at Sedo, I think parking it is a waste for such a valuable domain, so I decided to list it for sale.”

Antonio didn’t mention how much revenue the domain brought in over the past year. However, it seems unlikely that it made thousands of dollars a month, or else it wouldn’t be listed for sale.

Interestingly, people who are interested in ThePirateBay.com don’t have to buy it outright. If they don’t have that cash on hand, renting is an option as well for ‘just’ $7,000 per month.

ThePirateBay.com Goes Up For Sale, But Renting is an Option Too

Jake Paul Fight Piracy: Judge Dismisses Triller’s Main Lawsuit, Others On The Brink

Thu, 12 Aug 2021 22:45:07 +0000

A court in the United States has dismissed Triller's original lawsuit that targeted a site alleged to have pirated the Jake Paul vs Ben Askren fight. In another lawsuit, Triller failed to inform a court that an investigation was underway and faces a case dismissal. In another, Triller faces dismissal due to lack of prosecution.

Triller’s campaign to haul alleged Jake Paul vs. Ben Askren fight pirates into US courts hasn’t been straightforward.

After filing one big lawsuit, that was later reduced to just one defendant by a judge, Triller began filing individual complaints against some of the original defendants. Thus far, that venture hasn’t gone particularly well.

Last month in a California court, District Judge Fernando M. Olguin dismissed Triller’s lawsuit against YouTuber ‘ItsLilBrandon’ after failing to file for a default judgment supported by “detailed, clear, and thorough calculations” indicating the scale of the damages sought.

And now there are serious complications in other cases.

Judge Dismisses Case Against FilmDaily

The original lawsuit that kicked off Triller’s legal campaign now has just FilmDaily.com named as the sole defendant. This is interesting in itself since FilmDaily.com is not the domain Triller is complaining about – FilmDaily.co is.

On July 30, Triller was again warned that the case against the site could be dismissed for lack of prosecution but Triller quickly responded with an appeal to the court not to dismiss the case.

According to Triller, it has been conducting an investigation into FilmDaily but had failed to inform the court about that, a decision it now regrets. However, that investigation was apparently fruitful, with Triller able to identify the “true identity” of those behind the site.

What is curious about Triller’s recent response about FilmDaily is that it alleges (but does not show) that FilmDaily.co – which appears in most respects to be some kind of news portal – actually streamed the fight illegally.

“On April 17, 2021, Defendant created and published a post titled ‘Jake Paul vs Ben Askren ‘Reddit’ Live! Free Stream, How to Watch?,’ providing a clickable link titled ‘Click To Watch Paul vs Askren Live Stream Free.’ A true and correct copy of the aforementioned post is attached hereto as Exhibit D,” it reads.

As the image of that exhibit shows, that text is indeed present. However, there’s no evidence to show that the supposedly clickable link actually did anything or was tested, there are no screenshots of a fight being shown, and there is no explanation of why the same page advises people to visit Triller Fight Club and pay $49.99 to watch the event.

This is interesting in light of an earlier lawsuit filed by Triller against a site called AccessTVPro. This platform bears all the hallmarks of a scam site that seems unlikely to have offered the fight since it appears to be a scammy bait-and-switch-type operation. Sites like these claim to have content, lure people in, then try to extract payment for stuff they don’t have.

Triller recently told the court that it’s preparing a second amended complaint but none of that matters now. Triller was supposed to serve the defendant within 90 days of the filing of its complaint but failed to do so.

“[P]laintiff’s Response, does not establish when it obtained information about the true identity of Defendant or why it did not seek an extension of time or otherwise attempt to prosecute this action. Plaintiff therefore does not establish good cause for the delay in timely serving Defendant,” the court’s order reads.

“Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant is therefore dismissed under Rule 4(m) without prejudice as a result of Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve Defendant or establish good cause for that failure.”

(Order here, judgment here – both pdf)

Man Sued For Saying He Watched Fight, Triller “Failed to Litigate Case”

On June 11, Triller filed a lawsuit in an Ohio court against an individual named Jerren Swords. According to the complaint, the Ohio resident made the mistake of taunting Triller co-owner Ryan Kavanaugh on Instagram, declaring that he’d “watched the Jake Paul fight for free” and there was nothing Kavanaugh could do about it.

As it turned out, Triller was more than happy to step up with a lawsuit claiming that Swords had breached the Copyright Act and the Federal Communications Act while demanding at least $150,000 in damages.

Triller followed up by executing a summons on Swords on June 16 and his answer to the complaint was due July 7. Thus far, Swords has failed to respond to the court and according to the judge, that could be enough for Triller to obtain a default judgment. However, Triller appears to have issues with its own legal filings.

“[P]laintiff has failed to make any effort to litigate this case since filing its Complaint. Thus, dismissal for lack of prosecution may also be warranted,” Judge Michael R. Barrett warns in his order dated August 5, 2021 (here, pdf)

Triller responded to this order in a filing dated August 11, noting that it had served Swords on June 14 and on June 28, a man claiming to be Swords’ father contacted counsel for Triller to discuss the complaint. Triller then wrote to Jerren Swords asking if he intended to retain counsel and whether he consented to Triller discussing the matter with his father.

Since then there has been no further communication so Triller is now seeking an entry of default judgment. As a result, Triller is asking the court not to dismiss the case.

Lawsuit Against Eclipt Gaming / Matthew Space

On June 3, 2021, Triller sued another YouTuber – Matthew Space – the alleged operator of the Eclipt Gaming channel. With just 2,250 subscribers at the time, the channel has specialized in GTA Online videos, with most getting just a few hundred views. According to Triller, Space posted the Jake Paul fight to his channel and it was watched 297 times.

Despite the relatively small scale, Triller described Space’s conduct as “calculated and reprehensible infringement”, claiming that Space had somehow “intercepted, received and/or descrambled” their satellite signals and is therefore liable for tens of millions of dollars in damages.

On August 3, Judge Robert Gary Klausner wrote in an order to show cause (pdf) that the action against Space could be dismissed for lack of prosecution. In a filing dated August 9, Triller said that it had served Space on June 8 so he was required to respond to the court before July 9. However, Space had issues with his attorney and needed to find a new one in the right district, so Triller offered an extension until August 23.

With that in mind, Triller is now asking the court not to dismiss the action (pdf).

Jake Paul Fight Piracy: Judge Dismisses Triller’s Main Lawsuit, Others On The Brink

Netflix Intensifies ‘VPN’ Ban and Targets Residential IP-addresses Too

Wed, 11 Aug 2021 22:01:11 +0000

Netflix has stepped up its efforts to ban VPN and proxy users from bypassing geographical restrictions. The streaming service is now blocking residential IP addresses too, since some unblocking tools use these to bypass restrictions. This isn't without collateral damage as many regular Internet users without a VPN now report "missing content" on Netflix.

Six years ago, Netflix started blocking customers who tried to access its service over a commercial VPN or proxy service.

These changes came after copyright holders repeatedly complained that ‘pirates’ were bypassing Netflix’s geographical restrictions.

The VPN ban caused a lot of frustration for legitimate VPN users, many of whom had no intention of breaking any rules. At the same time, the VPN ‘pirates’ found workarounds by picking services that actively bypass Netflix’s restrictions.

Bypassing Restrictions

There are various ways VPN services have managed to circumvent these blocking efforts. Most keep the technical details private, but it’s commonly known that some are using residential IP-addresses as proxies, to make it look like VPN users are regular ISP subscribers.

This cat and mouse game has caused quite a bit of frustration at Netflix headquarters and, over the past few days, the company appears to have intensified its blocking measures.

There is a flurry of complaints on social media from users whose VPN services were suddenly ‘blocked’ by Netflix. Previously, these people couldn’t play any content while using a VPN. That changed last year. Now, VPN users can still see Netflix originals while other content is hidden and blocked.

People who try to access blocked titles directly through a saved URL will see Netflix’s dreaded proxy/VPN error message instead.

Netflix Bans Residential IP-Addresses

Netflix doesn’t explain which IP addresses are blocked and why, but the most recent efforts are much broader than before. This issue was brought to our attention by WeVPN, which noticed that the updated geo-fencing system is blocking its residential IP addresses.

These IP addresses are assigned to common consumer ISPs such as AT&T, Comcast, Verizon. While it makes sense for Netflix to put an end to these workarounds, there appears to be some collateral damage.

“The collateral damage is that you have hundreds of thousands of legitimate residential Netflix subscribers blocked from accessing Netflix’s local country full catalog from their home,” a WeVPN spokesperson informs us.

While we are unable to verify how many people are facing issues, it is clear that the measures are spilling over to regular subscribers.

Complaints Start Pouring In

TorrentFreak reached out to Netflix for a comment but the company didn’t immediately reply. However, a quick glance on social media shows a disturbing number of Netflix subscribers who are “missing” content, which is exactly what would happen when an IP-address is flagged.

“Hi! I noticed that my account is displaying nothing but Netflix originals and a handful of non-Netflix original content on my TV, but on my phone, it displays everything as usual/normal,” Reddit user literarydone observed.

“Idk whats happened but Netflix suddenly stopped showing tv shows that I was watching when my laptop is connected to the internet over wifi. it shows the same tv shows when my laptop is connected to the internet over mobile data hotspot,” another person wrote, with a commenter reporting the same problem.

Over the past 24 hours alone, there were multiple reports from people who are suffering “missing title” issues. None of these appear to use a VPN.

The common theme is that Netflix only shows Netflix originals on their IP address, which is expected when it’s flagged as a VPN or proxy. One Redditor managed to get a new IP-address from his ISP, which immediately resolved the problem.

“Contact Your ISP…”

While Netflix hasn’t released an official comment on the situation, the company is aware of the problems.

One user who complained on Twitter, got the advice to contact their ISP to see if their IP address is associated with proxy or VPN use. This is a peculiar suggestion, as the blocking is taking place on Netflix’s end.

We don’t know how widespread the problem is but based on the number of complaints we have seen so far it’s certainly not an isolated issue. That begs the question if the VPN banning measures are worth the collateral damage.

Netflix has all the rights to take action against people who bypass their restrictions, but when this harms paying customers who don’t use a VPN, it might not be the best solution.

Meanwhile, VPNs are taking countermeasures to make sure that their customers can access Netflix without restrictions.

WeVPN told us that the company is experimenting with a solution, which appears to function for now. CyberGhost and Private Internet Access, which were also affected by Netflix’s new blockades, say they managed to route around it within a day.

Netflix Intensifies ‘VPN’ Ban and Targets Residential IP-addresses Too

YouTuber Receives Strikes For Reviewing Legal Video Apps Available on Google Play

Wed, 11 Aug 2021 21:56:58 +0000

TechDoctorUK is experiencing some interesting problems with YouTube's policies that ban discussion of ways to bypass payment for digital content and services. The popular YouTuber has had tutorial videos for legal apps downloadable from Google Play flagged numerous times and is currently suspended from YouTube for 'banned' content that doesn't appear to be illegal.

For many years YouTube was a haven for people to upload and distribute videos explaining how to get otherwise premium content for free.

Tutorials for Kodi addons, infringing Android apps, and otherwise piracy-related videos were displayed in their thousands, providing assistance to established and would-be pirates alike.

Back in 2018 we predicted that the platform wouldn’t put up with this forever and soon enough, YouTube began clamping down on this type of content using its ‘harmful or dangerous’ content policies. YouTube’s restrictions are numerous and are especially clear when it comes to piracy-related tutorials.

“Bypassing payment for digital content or services: Showing viewers how to use apps, websites or other information technology to gain unauthorized free access to audio content, audiovisual content, full video games, software or streaming services that normally require payment,” the relevant section reads.

This policy has teeth. YouTube says that a first breach will probably result in a warning but a ‘strike’ is also possible. Three strikes in 90 days mean a channel termination and there is no shortage of piracy-focused YouTubers that didn’t heed the warnings and have been banned from the service. Interestingly, seemingly innocent parties can get sucked in too.

Popular YouTuber TechDoctorUK Can’t Catch a Break

With 223K subscribers and 12.7 million channel views, TechDoctorUK is known for his video tutorials. A couple of years ago, these included presentations on piracy apps such as Mobdro and Showbox but to avoid falling foul of YouTube’s content rules, these were all deleted and these days he says he only uploads tutorials for legal applications.

However, this shift doesn’t appear to be helping the YouTuber much. In numerous complaints directed to YouTube on Twitter, he explains that on at least five occasions YouTube has flagged his tutorials as breaching content guidelines, something which resulted in strikes against his account.

“I have received strikes for doing a review on Xumo TV, Pluto TV and others. All of which are completely legal. Fortunately, after tweeting TeamYoutube, they did remove the strikes,” he informs TF.

For example, the strike for the Pluto video was contested but YouTube stood by its stance that the video violated its guidelines. It took around four days to reverse the decision.

Another strike related to a video that showed how to use a Firestick backup manager. TechDoctorUK’s first appeal was rejected in two minutes but following a review, was later restored and the corresponding strike was removed.

However, after posting another review, this time covering an app called Teleboy, YouTube flagged his content as policy-violating yet again.

What’s of interest here is that the Teleboy app is distributed on Google Play and appears to be legitimate. Even if there were any red flags about the app itself, it’s still being distributed from there.

After complaining about this strike the objection was again rejected in two minutes (the video is eight minutes long) and TechDoctorUK still can’t get a response from YouTube or have his suspension removed. YouTube says that his content is still under review with the policy team.

So what is the problem exactly? TechDoctorUK believes that YouTube’s automated scanning tools are to blame.

Automation Bots Can’t Recognize Free From Infringing Apps

“The trouble is the automation bots don’t know if something is free in the first place,” TechDoctorUK informs TF.

“They just look/listen for keywords in your video and if they suspect it’s something related to free access, they just take down your video and give you a strike. Three strikes in the same 90 days and your channel is deleted.”

As the infringement warning from YouTube indicates a specific timestamp, it does appear that some scanning has taken place but why YouTube is flagging this type of content is unclear.

There’s a possibility that earlier (but now deleted content) covering various piracy apps could have placed the channel on the radar but this latest set of strikes suggest that the recognition system may need a tweak or two.

YouTuber Receives Strikes For Reviewing Legal Video Apps Available on Google Play

Rightscorp Site Triggers Security Warnings and Links to Cannabis Site

Tue, 10 Aug 2021 22:33:52 +0000

Rightscorp is a key player in several multi-million dollar piracy lawsuits. The company is a trusted anti-piracy partner of the RIAA, which uses its evidence in court. While we won't make any judgments about the security of Rightscorp's data collection, the company's official website is a mess and throws up security warnings.

Backed by the RIAA, several major music industry companies have taken some of the largest U.S. Internet providers to court.

The music companies accuse these providers of failing to terminate the accounts of the most egregious pirates by ignoring millions of copyright infringement notices.

This has already resulted in a massive windfall in their case against Cox, where a jury awarded a billion dollars in damages. The same music companies now hope to get the same outcome against and RCN, Charter, Bright House, and Grande Communications.

Rightscorp Evidence

Many of these lawsuits are centered around evidence from the anti-piracy outfit Rightscorp. The company collected settlements from U.S. Internet subscribers for several years but struggled to make a profit.

Going after alleged pirates directly wasn’t a great business model, so Rightscorp started to focus on ISPs. They encouraged the RIAA to take legal action against ISPs and offered its data as evidence, in return for a significant cash injection.

What followed was a series of copyright infringement lawsuits where Rightscorp’s piracy notices were used as key evidence. The data helped the RIAA to argue that ISPs did not take reasonable steps to stop persistent pirates on their networks.

Security Warnings

The accuracy of Rightscorp’s evidence is not without controversy. It was contested in court several times but, thus far, no judge has ruled that Rightscorp’s evidence is so flawed that it can’t be used. However, this doesn’t mean that everything is running smoothly at Rightscorp’s technical department.

It appears that Rightcorp’s official website, which is also used to collect settlements, is seriously broken. While doing research today we tried to access the site but got a security warning instead.

The error suggests that there’s something wrong with the SSL certificate. Initially, we assumed that it had expired, but on closer inspection, it appears that the certificate is issued to Greenearth.com, not Rightscorp.com.

Greenearth?

This also explains why the non-secure link shows content from Greenearth, welcoming users with a friendly “Hi”. The question is, why is this happening?

A likely explanation would be that the domain expired and someone else picked it up, but that’s not the case here. Greenearth can actually be directly linked to Rightscorp after a long stroll through some online ‘evidence’ trails.

Today, Greenearth’s homepage doesn’t have much content but it previously hosted a ‘thriving’ cannabis community. The donation page for the site, which has a link to PayPal, is actually still online today.

When we click on the donation button, PayPal informs us that the money will go to “genjitsu dojo inc.” This company has little to do with cannabis. It’s actually a martial arts school in Ventura, California, which lists Greg Boswell as its CEO. That’s a familiar name.

Chief Technology Officer

Gregory Boswell also happens to be the co-founder and Chief Technology Officer of Rightscorp. In fact, Boswell is the person who wrote Rightscorp’s software and system, starting on a PC in his garage.

On Linkedin, we also read that Boswell is running Greenearth which he relaunched as a “cannabis play,” hoping to provide content and services to the now more legal and growing cannabis business. However, it appears that this wasn’t a massive success.

The good news is that Rightscorp’s domain hasn’t been hijacked by a malicious third party. However, the company may want to fix the SSL errors as people are unable to settle any claims now, if that’s still a thing.

And for a company whose technical systems are at the center of some of the most high-profile copyright lawsuits, these security errors are not a particularly good look either.

Rightscorp Site Triggers Security Warnings and Links to Cannabis Site

Court Dismisses Yout.com DMCA Circumvention Lawsuit Against RIAA, For Now

Tue, 10 Aug 2021 22:30:39 +0000

Last year, YouTube-ripping service Yout.com sued the RIAA, hoping to have its platform declared legal after the music industry group allegedly damaged its goodwill and disrupted its business by sending DMCA notices to Google. The case has now been dismissed without prejudice, meaning that Yout is now free to file an amended complaint with additional facts.

Follow the RIAA’s attempt to have youtube-dl removed from Github, ripping service Yout carried out a preemptive legal strike against the record label group.

Filed in a Connecticut court, Yout argued that previous actions by the RIAA to have its homepage delisted from Google, on the basis that it circumvented YouTube’s ‘rolling cipher’ technology, were wrongful and damaged its business.

“Contrary to Defendants’ allegations, Yout’s software platform is not designed to descramble, decrypt, avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair the YouTube rolling cipher technology,” Yout’s complaint read.

RIAA’s Motion to Dismiss, Yout’s Response

A month after Yout filed its first amended complaint in December 2020, the RIAA filed a motion to dismiss, noting that according to copyright law the threshold definition for a Technological Protection Measure (the rolling cipher in this case) is low, meaning that just because a measure can be bypassed, it does not follow that the measure can’t be considered “effective”.

According to the RIAA, this is due to section 1201 of the DMCA considering whether an “ordinary” or “average” consumer can bypass protection measures, not someone with the necessary technical skills. The RIAA also argued that since the Yout service turns streams into MP3 downloads after obtaining a “signature value” from YouTube, that is the very definition of circumventing a TPM.

Yout responded to the RIAA’s motion in February, arguing that since it does not decrypt, bypass or avoid any measures on YouTube, claims of circumvention are incorrect. Yout argued that terms used by the RIAA (including “avoid” and “bypass”) suggest that the service abused YouTube’s technical measures when in fact its methodology should be described simply as “use” of a TPM.

RIAA Asks Court to Dismiss Yout’s Complaint

In March the RIAA fought back again, rejecting Yout’s claims that its “use” of YouTube’s rolling cipher protection is entirely legal. The RIAA also noted that the DMCA notices it sent to Google alleging circumvention offenses did not have to include references to specific copyright works, as Yout had claimed.

The RIAA asked the court to rule on its motion to dismiss Yout’s first amended complaint as a matter of law, without allowing Yout to further amend its complaint. It asked the court to do so with prejudice, so that Yout would not be able to return with a “futile” amendment that would “only further support RIAA’s legal arguments.”

Late last week the court dismissed Yout’s case as the RIAA requested but did so without prejudice, meaning that the matter isn’t over just yet.

Court Gives Both Sides Room To Expand and Clarify

TorrentFreak has spoken with people familiar with the complaint and the consensus is that the lawsuit developed into something much more complex than Yout’s complaint initially encompassed, something recognized by the judge.

Mitch Stoltz, Senior Staff Attorney at EFF, was present in court for the dismissal and he believes the hearing was good for Yout.

“The judge was highly engaged and appeared to be taking the time to understand the issue. A motion to dismiss is supposed to focus on the formal complaint (here, yout.com’s) without bringing in additional facts,” he informs TF.

“Ultimately, because both yout.com and RIAA brought up additional facts in their arguments about how YouTube works, the judge asked yout.com to revise its complaint to add more detail. After that, there will likely be more briefing from both sides and another hearing.”

Yout’s amended complaint must be filed within 28 days of the August 5 hearing.

RIAA’s motion to dismiss/memo can be found here (1,2), order can be found here (pdf)

Court Dismisses Yout.com DMCA Circumvention Lawsuit Against RIAA, For Now

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – August 9, 2021

Mon, 09 Aug 2021 21:21:05 +0000

The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only.

These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into the piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources.

This week we have three new entries in the list. “The Suicide Squad” is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on August 09 are:

Movie Rank	Rank last week	Movie name	IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1	(…)	The Suicide Squad	7.6 / trailer
2	(3)	Jungle Cruise	6.8 / trailer
3	(1)	F9: The Fast Saga	5.3 / trailer
4	(2)	Black Widow	7.0 / trailer
5	(4)	The Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard	6.3 / trailer
6	(5)	The Forever Purge	5.4 / trailer
7	(7)	Space Jam: A New Legacy	4.3 / trailer
8	(…)	Vivo	6.9 / trailer
9	(back)	The Tomorrow War	6.6 / trailer
10	(9)	A Quiet Place Part II	7.7 / trailer

Note: We also publish an updating archive of all the list of weekly most torrented movies lists.

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 08/09/2021

Sci-Hub Pledges Open Source & AI Alongside Crypto Donation Drive

Mon, 09 Aug 2021 21:17:35 +0000

Sci-Hub founder Alexandra Elbakyan has launched a donation drive to ensure the operations and development of the popular academic research platform. For safety reasons, donations can only be made in cryptocurrencies but the pledges include a drive to open source the project and the introduction of artificial intelligence to discover new hypotheses.

Since launching a decade ago in 2011, Sci-Hub has occupied a unique space in the pirate site ecosystem.

While its unlicensed counterparts in movie, TV show and music distribution are vilified for undermining creators, Sci-Hub has received broad praise for helping to spread knowledge for the furtherment of science and education, particularly to those who can least afford it.

But that praise is not universal.

Companies in the publishing sector, whose papers are most likely to appear on Sci-Hub, describe the platform using the same terms as those lobbed at regular ‘pirate’ sites, claiming that “theft is theft”, regardless of the Robin Hood-style romance that has flourished alongside the scientific library.

But despite many lawsuits and blocking efforts around the world financed by massive corporations, Sci-Hub defies the odds by staying afloat. And at the same time as authorities warn people away from the platform, it continues to prove its relevance, even in papers published by those who would like to see it shuttered for good.

Sci-Hub cannot avoid the realities of the financial system, however, and has now launched a donation drive to stay afloat and enhance development in the months and years to come.

Sci-Hub Calls For Help to Ensure Free Knowledge For All

According to the latest stats made available by founder Alexandra Elbakyan, Sci-Hub has a database of more than 85 million research papers that is used by 500,000 people every day including scientists and students, medical practitioners and journalists.

However, Sci-Hub cannot exist on fresh air and as a result, relies on donations to operate. A new campaign launched by Elbakyan on Saturday hopes to encourage people to contribute to the site’s future, promising “dramatic improvements” over the next few years in return.

In addition to offering enhanced search features and a mobile app, Sci-Hub is pledging developments that include the open sourcing of the project. Also of interest is the pledge to introduce an artificial intelligence component that should make better use of the masses of knowledge hosted by Sci-Hub.

“Sci-Hub engine will [be] powered by artificial intelligence. Neural Networks will read scientific texts, extract ideas and make inferences and discover new hypotheses,” Elbakyan reveals.

The overall goal of the next few years is to boost content availability too, expanding from hosting “the majority of research articles” available today to include “any scientific document ever published.”

Addressing the Major Challenge – Legality

While Sci-Hub has made dramatic progress over the past decade, there are entities out there that want to restrict both its growth and success.

Back in February, for example, publishers Elsevier and Springer Nature obtained a new ISP blocking order in the UK, aiming to make it more difficult for users to access the platform. Indeed, a day before the Sci-Hub donation drive began, ISP TalkTalk began reporting that a new court order had gone into effect targeting the scihub.unblockit.uno domain, which facilitates access to Sci-Hub when direct access isn’t possible.

Quite how Sci-Hub plans to resist legal challenges is not clear but according to Elbakyan, any donations to the project will help her to combat mechanisms put in place to prevent the free sharing of information.

“Access to information and knowledge is a basic human right. Sci-Hub will fight those laws that make free exchange of information impossible. The project will eventually be recognized as legal,” she predicts.

Only Crypto Donations Allowed

Given the nature of the project, Sci-Hub is only accepting donations in cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. This is due to Elbakyan’s negative experiences with PayPal. In the past, thousands of dollars were received in donations but following complaints from publishers, PayPal shuttered that account and others.

“It turned out that Elsevier had complained to PayPal about Sci-Hub so they froze the account. Later I tried registering another PayPal account, and use it carefully, but after some time it also got frozen. I have several frozen PayPal accounts by now,” Elbakyan says.

“The most important feature of cryptocurrencies is that unlike PayPal, or bank accounts they cannot be frozen by a third party because your project is illegal or because Elsevier complained about it. They are safe currency. That’s why today Sci-Hub collects donations primarily in crypto.”

As things stand, Sci-Hub seems to favor Bitcoin (BTC) but can accept donations in Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin, Ripple, Monero and Ethereum, among others.

The project’s donation page containing all of the details can be found here

Sci-Hub Pledges Open Source & AI Alongside Crypto Donation Drive