Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'triller'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Site Related
    • News & Updates
    • Site / Forum Feedback
    • Member Introduction
  • News
    • General News
    • FileSharing News
    • Mobile News
    • Software News
    • Security & Privacy News
    • Technology News
  • Downloads
    • nsane.down
  • General Discussions & Support
    • Filesharing Chat
    • Security & Privacy Center
    • Software Chat
    • Mobile Mania
    • Technology Talk
    • Entertainment Exchange
    • Guides & Tutorials
  • Off-Topic Chat
    • The Chat Bar
    • Jokes & Funny Stuff
    • Polling Station

Categories

  • Drivers
  • Filesharing
    • BitTorrent
    • eDonkey & Direct Connect (DC)
    • NewsReaders (Usenet)
    • Other P2P Clients & Tools
  • Internet
    • Download Managers & FTP Clients
    • Messengers
    • Web Browsers
    • Other Internet Tools
  • Multimedia
    • Codecs & Converters
    • Image Viewers & Editors
    • Media Players
    • Other Multimedia Software
  • Security
    • Anti-Malware
    • Firewalls
    • Other Security Tools
  • System
    • Benchmarking & System Info
    • Customization
    • Defrag Tools
    • Disc & Registry Cleaners
    • Management Suites
    • Other System Tools
  • Other Apps
    • Burning & Imaging
    • Document Viewers & Editors
    • File Managers & Archivers
    • Miscellaneous Applications
  • Linux Distributions

Categories

  • General News
  • File Sharing News
  • Mobile News
  • Software News
  • Security & Privacy News
  • Technology News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Found 7 results

  1. Triller Sues Scam Streaming Site AccessTVPro For Jake Paul Fight Piracy Triller has filed yet another lawsuit targeting entities that supposedly streamed the Jake Paul vs. Ben Askren fight back in April. The defendants in the latest complaint are pirate streaming site AccessTVPro and its presumed Bangladesh-based operator. The big question, however, is whether this platform ever streamed the site since all the signs point to this being a scam operation. Over the past few months Triller has filed a series of lawsuits against people who allegedly copied, streamed, or otherwise distributed the Jake Paul vs. Ben Askren PPV fight. The company has amassed a broad range of targets. In addition to suing several YouTubers who allegedly uploaded the fight to their personal channels (1,2,3), Triller has also sued a person who simply claimed he watched the fight without paying for it. The company has also filed complaints against streaming sites and their operators and this week it added yet another lawsuit to its growing collection. New Lawsuit Targets AccessTVPro Streaming site AccessTVPro.co has ostensibly been offering pirated streams of sporting events for some time, reaching around 250,000 visitors per month back in January 2021. Traffic dropped significantly and then leveled off in March according to SimilarWeb data, only to bounce back in April when the Jake Paul fight was aired. Since then its visitor numbers have gone downhill but that’s not the only problem facing the platform. At least according to Triller, AccessTVPro and its operator Mahfuz Alam owe the company significant damages for streaming the fight to its users without permission. At this stage, Triller doesn’t appear to know much about AccessTVPro (ATVP). Aside from naming its alleged operator and tracing him to Dhaka, Bangladesh, Triller admits that it knows nothing about the site’s business structure other than it does business in California – i.e the place where some of its users allegedly watched the fight. “Upon information and belief, ATVP owns, operates, or otherwise controls the Website for the purpose of permitting, encouraging, facilitating, and inducing the sharing of videos and live programing of audiovisual materials between users of the website,” the complaint reads. “Those materials include programming owned and/or controlled by Plaintiff, including the Broadcast, which was offered by ATVP through its illegal uploading and distribution of the Broadcast via the Website.” Triller’s Claims For Damages Following the templates forged in previous lawsuits against FilmDaily, Online2LiveStream and My-Sports.club, Triller is suing AccessTVPro for copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, and violations of the Federal Communications Act. Triller demands statutory damages of up to $110,000 for each violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) and up to $60,000 for each violation of 47 U.S.C. § 553, plus attorney’s fees, interest and costs. Additional damages, including for two types of copyright infringement, should be determined at trial. Triller also demands an injunction to prevent ongoing infringement but at the moment AccessTVPro is showing no signs of being in the streaming business. However, it does appear to have a familiar way of generating money. AccessTVPro Now Generates Money Using a Recently-Reported ‘Scam’ Interestingly, people visiting AccessTVPro.co today aren’t met with anything useful. Its main page is completely blank and shows no signs of activity. However, those who navigate directly to pages elsewhere on the site are met with what appears to be an offer to stream content from the UFC, for example. Those clicking the relevant buttons will be disappointed. Like more than a thousand similar sites, AccessTVPro attempts to fool users into paying for content it simply does not have access to. The site diverts to a payment portal that requests money but as reported earlier this month, that should not be trusted. We are not linking to the page or the scheme but a very detailed investigation carried out by Radio Canada’s program Décrypteurs shows that people should stay away. The initial free trial, when it expires, triggers a $49.95 subscription payment. Many people simply forget to cancel, something which has reportedly made its operators millions of dollars in revenue. That raises the question of whether AccessTVPro ever offered the fight. The site isn’t indexed by Wayback Machine but Google cache data shows pages that link only to so-called ‘subscription traps’. Another tell-tale sign is the lack of DMCA notices filed against AccessTVPro. Sky UK sent a couple of notices to Google in December 2020 and also this month, alleging piracy of the Joshua v Pulev and Mayweather vs Logan Paul fights respectively. However, both of those pages also link to similar scams that simply do not offer the fight. Whether this business model will generate AccessTVPro enough in affiliate fees to settle its case with Triller remains a question. It could argue that it only linked to scams but as Triller’s earlier case against Online2LiveStream demonstrates, the company is also prepared to sue for false advertising. Triller’s latest lawsuit can be found here (pdf) Triller Sues Scam Streaming Site AccessTVPro For Jake Paul Fight Piracy
  2. Triller Sues YourEXTRA YouTube Channel For Jake Paul Fight Piracy People who thought that uploading the Jake Paul vs. Ben Askren fight to YouTube was a good idea are now having their opinions changed by Triller. As the list of targets expands, Triller has filed a new lawsuit targeting the operator of the YourEXTRA YouTube channel, demanding what could stretch to millions in damages for breaches of copyright law and the Federal Communications Act. Every week millions of users upload their own content to YouTube. The platform provides a great way to grow a large audience but for those who don’t play the rules, trouble can lie ahead. In many instances, uploading infringing material to YouTube can go completely unpunished but choose content that is closely monitored (such as music), suspensions and even account closures can be the end result. And as some individuals are now learning, there are bigger pitfalls too. Triller Sending a Clear Message to Boxing Pirates As widely publicized, for the past couple of months Triller has been filing lawsuit after lawsuit against people who allegedly copied, streamed, or otherwise distributed the Jake Paul vs. Ben Askren PPV fight without permission. The litigation hasn’t always gone smoothly but Triller seems undeterred. In addition to filing lawsuits against ‘pirate’ streaming sites and their operators, Triller has cast its legal net to encompass a growing number of YouTubers who uploaded the fight to their personal channels. Larger channels such as the H3 Podcast have been targeted, right through to almost complete unknowns who reportedly streamed the fight just 300 times. But Triller is clearly not done. Triller Files Yet Another Lawsuit Against a YouTuber In a California court yesterday, Triller named Arvin De La Santos as the main defendant in yet another lawsuit. According to the company, Santos is the operator of the YouTube channel YourEXTRA, which describes itself as specializing in “opinions and views” on trending news plus “drama related topics”. The channel has 113,000+ subscribers and since 2017 has racked up 14 million+ views. As far as we can see the Jake Paul fight isn’t currently listed, which supports Triller’s claims that it filed a complaint with YouTube to have it taken down. Nevertheless, the fight was uploaded in breach of Triller’s rights, the company argues, and YourEXTRA won’t be able to rely on a ‘fair use’ defense either. “Upon information and belief, Defendants, and each of them, unlawfully uploaded, distributed and publicly displayed, without authorization, and with no supplemental commentary or other attempt at transformation, the Broadcast to the users of the YouTube Channel,” the complaint reads. “Defendants’ calculated and reprehensible infringement, theft, and other unlawful acts — committed in knowing violation of the law — has resulted in damages suffered by Plaintiff by stealing and diverting unique viewers of the illegal and unauthorized viewings of the Broadcast from Plaintiff.” The allegations against Santos and YourEXTRA are broadly the same as those listed in a lawsuit filed against Matthew Space, the alleged owner of the ‘Eclipt Gaming’ channel. Triller describes YourEXTRA as a business entity and ‘alter ego’ of Santos, which he set up to avoid liability to Triller. Given that the channel was founded well over three years before the fight took place, that may raise questions in court. The claims for damages are broadly similar too, with Triller demanding compensation for copyright infringement and vicarious copyright infringement (Triller says Santos profited from the fight) in an amount to be determined at trial, plus $110,000 for each violation of the Federal Communications Act. Triller doesn’t say how many times the fight was streamed by users of YouTube but it probably won’t be hard to find out. YouTube is A Bad Place to Upload Pirated Content With the most recognizable branding on the Internet and traffic to match, YouTube is a great place to upload videos when people own the necessary copyrights. However, those who upload infringing content (and are unlucky enough to find themselves targeted in a lawsuit) might soon find out that a pirate site would’ve been a much safer option. At some point, Triller is likely to ask the court to compel YouTube/Google to hand over information about users including Santos and Space. Presuming that goes ahead, there will be no shortage of data to disclose. Quite simply, YouTube has all the information that Triller needs to demand possibly millions in damages, data that pirate sites either wouldn’t collect in the first place or would likely refuse to hand over. All of that being said, Triller doesn’t mind pushing ahead with a lawsuit even when evidence of infringement is thin or non-existent. As previously reported, the company is currently suing an Instagram user for watching the fight, based purely on his online confession that he didn’t pay for the privilege. Santos/YourEXTRA has been approached for comment. Triller’s complaint filed against Santos and YourEXTRA can be found here (pdf) Triller Sues YourEXTRA YouTube Channel For Jake Paul Fight Piracy
  3. New Triller Lawsuit Targets Young YouTuber For Jake Paul Fight Piracy Triller is continuing its pursuit of companies, business entities and individuals who allegedly posted the recent Jake Paul fight online without permission. The latest target is the operator of a small YouTube channel that showed the fight less than 300 times. Nevertheless, Triller is demanding damages that could reach tens of millions of dollars. A lot for what appears to be a very young man. After the Jake Paul vs. Ben Askren fight took place in April, Triller fired off a $100m lawsuit targeting entities and individuals who allegedly streamed the event illegally online. In the early stages, the lawsuit did not go to plan. Judge Percy Anderson wasn’t happy that 13 main yet separate defendants had been bundled into the same action, noting that the illegal conduct of one defendant could be wrongly attributed to another independent defendant. As a result, every defendant except FilmDaily.com was culled from the suit, with Triller faced with having to file new lawsuits if it wanted to progress cases against other defendants. The company responded by suing the H3 Podcast and then last week filed three new lawsuits targeting the people behind Online2LiveStream.us and My-Sports.club, plus YouTuber ‘ItsLilBrandon’. Yesterday, Triller added yet another fresh lawsuit to the collection, targeting the operator of another YouTube channel. Lawsuit Targets Matthew Space, Alleged Owner of ‘Eclipt Gaming’ While all lawsuits are serious by their very nature, it’s hard to view the Elipt Gaming YouTube channel in the same light as some of the other defendants in Triller’s litigation drive. First of all, Eclipt is small. At the time of writing the YouTube channel has just 2,250 subscribers who mostly appear interested in the gaming videos on offer. Even then, these videos aren’t particularly popular. While a GTA Online video has 1,600 views, the vast majority of the others are lucky if they get a couple of hundred. This is definitely not a major piracy hub. Nevertheless, the terminology used by Triller pulls no punches. Eclipt Gaming is described as a business entity founded around March 2018 and operated by an individual named as Matthew P. Space. Triller also throws in an additional 10 ‘Doe’ defendants for reasons that are not yet clear. The company goes on to allege copyright infringement, taking care to eliminate any attempt at a ‘fair use’ defense. “[O]n or about April 19, 2021, Defendants, and each of them, unlawfully uploaded, distributed and publicly displayed, without authorization, and with no supplemental commentary or other attempt at transformation, the Broadcast to the users of the YouTube Channel, as a video entitled ‘Jake Paul Vs Ben Askren Full Fight + Highlights & Post Fight Interview,’ which was available at https://youtube.com/watch?v=YAfEWF4tdco,” the lawsuit reads. Triller says it “promptly notified YouTube of the infringing content, and the aforementioned video is no longer available,” although the link does not return a YouTube copyright complaint notice. Triller’s Evidence Reveals Fight Was Streamed 297 Times As shown in the screenshot below, Triller visited the Eclipt Gaming channel after the fight was finished, something which is made clear by the inclusion of a post-fight interview in the allegedly infringing video. In common with Eclipt’s other videos the fight was lightly viewed, having been streamed just 297 times, although Triller expands that in its comments to the court. “Defendants’ calculated and reprehensible infringement, theft, and other unlawful acts — committed in knowing violation of the law — has resulted in damages suffered by Plaintiff by stealing and diverting at least 300 unique viewers of the illegal and unauthorized viewings of the Broadcast from Plaintiff,” Triller’s complaint reads. In common with Triller’s other recently filed lawsuits, the company describes Eclipt in extremely elaborate terms, including claims that it acts as a “shell” for Matthew Space’s business interests that was “conceived, intended, and used by Space as a device to avoid liability and for the purpose of substituting an undercapitalized entity — namely, Eclipt — in the place of Space.” It will be interesting to see what the court makes of that claim and various others that tread similar lines, including claims that Space and Eclipt commingled assets and engaged in unlawful business conduct in an effort to avoid liability to Triller. On first blush and based on the videos on offer, it seems unlikely that there were many assets to commingle, let alone in any particularly organized fashion. Claims Show Judge Was Right to Dismiss Original Lawsuit As previously mentioned, the Judge dealing with the original $100m complaint was concerned that bundling many defendants into one suit could result in the illegal conduct of one defendant being wrongly attributed to another. Those concerns are now proving to be correct. The new batch of lawsuits, including the one filed against Eclipt, are all different. Indeed, most have a laundry list of offenses but for Eclipt, just three are listed. Alleging copyright infringement and vicarious copyright infringement, Triller says that Eclipt “illegally copied, uploaded, publicly performed and distributed the Broadcast via the internet with full knowledge that the Broadcast could only be obtained by purchasing a license from Plaintiff.” For this Triller demands all profits made by the defendants and damages for its losses, in a sum to be determined at trial. At least in theory, these claims could reach tens of millions of dollars. Alleging violations of the Federal Communications Act, Triller says that Space/Eclipt somehow “intercepted, received and/or descrambled Plaintiff’s satellite signal” in order to receive the fight and subsequently copied and distributed it via YouTube in exchange for “payments to aid, encourage, support, or otherwise endorse Defendants’ infringing conduct.” For each offense (at least 300, according to Triller) the company demands up to $110,000, meaning that Eclipt/Space could, in theory, be on the hook for an additional tens of millions of dollars in damages. That’s a lot for someone who looks a lot like a teenager in his numerous gaming videos from just a couple of years ago. Triller’s complaint can be found here (pdf) New Triller Lawsuit Targets Young YouTuber For Jake Paul Fight Piracy
  4. Triller Files Three New Lawsuits Against Jake Paul Boxing Match Pirates Triller's legal campaign against entities that allegedly streamed the Jake Paul boxing match is on the move again after three new lawsuits were filed in a California court on Thursday. The suits target several companies and individuals behind a Canada-based streaming platform, a YouTuber, and the alleged operator of an online streaming portal. After the Jake Paul vs. Ben Askren fight was streamed illegally online, Triller filed a $100m complaint against several domains and individuals, describing them as “business entities” that breached its copyrights. This was supported by an amnesty program, advising people who watched the fight illegally to pay $49.99 to avoid being sucked into Triller’s litigation drive. The early steps didn’t go smoothly. Judge Percy Anderson wasn’t happy that Triller had bundled several entities (FilmDaily.com, AccessTVPro.co, Online2LiveStream.us, CrackStreamsLive.com, Sports-Today.club, My-Sports.club, BilaSport.com, Trendy Clips, Mike, Your Extra, Eclipt Gaming, ItsLilBrandon, and H3 Podcast) into one lawsuit. The Judge said that joining them all in the same action as cooperating parties raised the possibility that the illegal conduct of one defendant could be wrongly attributed to another independent defendant. As a result, the Court ordered all defendants other than FilmDaily.com to be dismissed. Triller responded by filing a separate lawsuit against the H3 Podcast has now followed up with separate lawsuits against three of the original defendants. This time around, Triller is being rather more specific. First Triller Lawsuit Targets Online2LiveStream.us In a lawsuit filed in a California court Thursday, Triller names Robiul Awal, Robiul Islam, Online2LiveStream.us and Does 1 to 10 as defendants. The complaint begins by following the format of the original lawsuit and names Awal and Islam as the alleged owners and/or operators of Online2LiveStream.us. The lawsuit alleges that all defendants operated as part of a conspiracy, with Awal and Islam operating their site as a device to avoid liability. “Defendant Online2LiveStream are, and at all times herein mentioned were, controlled, dominated, and operated by Defendants Awal and Islam as their alter ego, in that the activities and business of Defendant Online2LiveStream were carried out without annual meetings, and without keeping records or minutes of any proceedings, or maintaining written resolutions,” the complaint reads. In common with the original lawsuit, Triller is suing Online2LiveStream for copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, violations of the Federal Communications Act, conversion, and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Interestingly, this suit also adds a claim of false advertising after Online2LiveStream recently changed its business model. Visitors to the site who want to watch boxing are now presented with a splash screen suggesting they can watch the Paul vs. Askren fight but like many sites that attempt to cash in while cashing out, this now leads to nowhere good. Indeed, the site now links to a scam site that is happy to take people’s credit card details but doesn’t offer what it claims to provide. “Defendants misleading the public as to the lawful way to obtain Plaintiff’s service has injured Plaintiff,” Triller writes. Second Triller Lawsuit Targets YouTuber ItsLilBrandon In a second lawsuit filed in the same US court, Triller targets Brandon T. Williams, the person who allegedly operates online using the ItsLilBrandon “business entity”, plus Does 1 to 10. In what appears to be an effort to cover all bases, Triller alleges that the defendants are not only the operators of the ItsLilBrandon YouTube channel but also the owners and operators of various torrent and streaming websites. Triller doesn’t name any of them but says that the defendants solicited payments in exchange for uploading the Jake Paul event to YouTube. “[D]efendants, and each of them, solicited payments in exchange for their unlawful uploading, distribution, and public display of the Broadcast to users of the YouTube Channel by, among other things, asking users to ‘please help me out’ and providing information for an account with Cash App, a mobile payment processing service,” the complaint notes. In common with the suit against Online2LiveStream, Triller describes the ItsLilBrandon ‘branding’ as a shell to avoid liability. The company claims that this “business entity” was operated without annual meetings, without keeping records or minutes of any proceedings, or maintaining written resolutions. Triller is suing the ItsLilBrandon defendants for copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, violations of the Federal Communications Act, conversion, and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Third Triller Lawsuit Targets My-Sports.club Defendants The final lawsuit in this batch targets several business entities and individuals with a focus on Canada – 8100462 Canada Inc. (doing business as MediaHub aka Performance Marketers), 8099316 Canada Inc., Diglo Inc., an individual named as Nicolas Klivokiotis, plus Does 1 to 10. According to Triller, the defendants are the owners and operators of various torrent and streaming websites including Sports-Today.club and My-Sports.club. “[O]n or about April 17, 2021, Defendants created and published on the Websites a post titled ‘ACCESS BOXING WITHOUT CABLE! YOUR SCREEN. YOUR TERMS’,” Triller writes. “The aforementioned post also contained a clickable link to permit users of the Websites to unlawfully view the Broadcast. Defendants did not have authorization to upload, distribute, or publicly display the Broadcast to the users of the Websites.” Triller says this was a for-profit operation, with visitors directed to external and/or shareable payment links (including PayPal) to fund the defendants’ breaches of the company’s rights. “[D]efendant Klivokiotis is an individual who serves as the Director, President, Secretary, and Treasurer of Defendant MediaHub and the Director of Defendant 8099316, and served as the Director of Defendant Diglo,” Triller claims. “Upon information and belief, Defendant Klivokiotis owns, operates, or otherwise controls the Websites for the purpose of permitting, encouraging, facilitating, and inducing the sharing of videos and live programing of audiovisual materials between users of the Websites.” Similar allegations to those made against Online2LiveStream and ItsLilBrandon suggest that the companies named in the suit acted as “shells” to shield Klivokiotis from liability. Most other claims are broadly the same as those made in the other two lawsuits, demanding relief for copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, violations of the Federal Communications Act, conversion, and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Claims For Relief (All Lawsuits) Triller is demanding an injunction to prevent ongoing infringement, plus an order awarding it all of the profits made by the defendants and damages to cover its losses. The company also demands statutory damages of up to $110,000 for each violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) and up to $60,000 for each violation of 47 U.S.C. § 553, plus attorney’s fees, interest and costs. Additional damages, including for two types of copyright infringement (which could be even more substantial) should be determined at trial. Finally, and on a less serious note, poor old Ben Askren simply can’t catch a break. In addition to being knocked out by Jake Paul, before the fight he was inexplicably announced as ‘Ben Askew’ by veteran ring announcer Michael Buffer, much to his disbelief and the amusement of Jake Paul. In Triller’s lawsuits, ‘Funky Ben’ is also referred to by the surnames ARKSEN and ARSKEN. Triller’s three new lawsuits can be found here, here and here (pdf) Triller Files Three New Lawsuits Against Jake Paul Boxing Match Pirates
  5. Triller Hits H3 Podcast With $50m Jake Paul Piracy Lawsuit, Judge Guts Original Complaint Triller's legal campaign against entities that allegedly streamed the Jake Paul boxing match has taken two new and significant turns. After the judge gutted the original lawsuit targeting several sites, dismissing all but one of them from a $100m lawsuit, Triller has now filed a second complaint, demanding $50m from the popular H3 Podcast. Triller’s legal campaign against sites and other entities that allegedly streamed the Jake Paul vs. Ben Askren fight on April 17 is fast becoming an entertainment product in its own right. Triller began by filing a $100m complaint against several domains and individuals, describing them as “business entities” that breached its copyrights. On the heels of this complaint, Triller launched an amnesty program, advising people who watched the fight illegally to pay $49.99 to avoid being sucked into its litigation drive. As reported last week, Triller asked the court for permission to subpoena YouTube and Google to obtain information against the defendants, so that it could build a more thorough case against them. Now, however, it’s clear the court isn’t happy with the way the lawsuit is being pursued. Triller Fails To Convince Judge, Lawsuit in Peril Previously, Judge Percy Anderson raised questions over Triller’s claims that the defendants in the lawsuit acted together to infringe the company’s rights. Noting that Triller had not presented any well-pleaded facts to support this allegation, the Judge put the company on notice, warning that he could drop one or more defendants from the lawsuit. Triller did file a response but completely failed to convince the court. Triller previously insisted that the defendants acted jointly, noting that they were all connected due to each entity being involved in the illegal distribution of the Jake Paul fight. The Judge found this unconvincing and explained that Triller had offered no evidence to show anything other than the defendants acting independently. “Put simply, the Court provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to provide the Court with some evidentiary basis to support its conclusory allegations supporting joinder of these Defendants. Plaintiff’s failure to provide any such evidence and Ex Parte Application for Expedited Discovery indicates that it currently lacks facts to support joinder and calls into question the adequacy of Plaintiff’s compliance with its pre-suit investigation obligations..,” Judge Anderson responded. In respect of Triller’s demand to have Google and YouTube hand over information on the defendants as a matter of urgency, so that it could file for a preliminary injunction to prevent further infringement, the Judge said that would not be happening either. “According to Plaintiff, a preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent the irreparable harm of Defendants continuing to offer the Broadcast without authorization. Plaintiff does not, however, explain what irreparable harm it continues to suffer from the availability of copies of a live sporting event that occurred weeks ago, the outcome of which is publicly available, and lasted less than two minutes,” he wrote. Judge Guts Triller’s $100m Lawsuit After denying Triller’s application for expedited discovery, the Judge has also gone ahead with his threat to dismiss several defendants from the lawsuit. AccessTVPro.co, Online2LiveStreams.us, CrackStreamsLive.com, Sports-Today.club, My-Sports.club, BilaSport.com, Trendy Clips, Mike, Your Extra, Eclipt Gaming, ItsLilBrandon, and the H3 Podcast were all dismissed, leaving FilmDaily.com as the sole defendant. While the dismissed defendants may see this as a victory, the Judge clearly stated that Triller was not being prevented from filing additional lawsuits against these defendants in the future. The main problem was their joining in the same lawsuit as cooperating parties and the possibility that the illegal conduct of one defendant could be wrongly attributed to another independent defendant. The big question, then, was whether Triller would simply focus on FilmDaily.com or if it would begin filing additional lawsuits. That question has now been answered after Triller filed an individual lawsuit targeting the H3 Podcast, demanding huge financial compensation. Triller: H3 Podcast Alone Caused $50m in Damages The new complaint against the H3 Podcast follows a similar format to Triller’s original lawsuit, albeit with some modifications. The claims for two types of copyright infringement, violations of the Federal Communications Act (FCA), conversion, and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act stand, while claims for breach of contract and conspiracy have now been removed. The claims center on the YouTube channel of the H3 Podcast, from where it’s alleged its operators “unlawfully uploaded, distributed, and publicly displayed” the fight in breach of Triller’s rights and from where infringement continues to this day. “Defendant’s calculated and reprehensible infringement, theft, and other unlawful acts — committed in knowing violation of the law — has resulted in damages suffered by Plaintiff in excess of $50,000,000.00, by stealing and diverting upwards of 1,000,000 unique viewers of the illegal and unauthorized viewings of the Broadcast from Plaintiff,” the complaint reads. Whether Triller will file additional lawsuits covering the other defendants dismissed from the original complaint is currently unclear. What is obvious, however, is that the mainstream visibility of the H3 Podcast and its hosts, Ethan and Hila Klein, has made that ‘business entity’ the easiest to pursue. The judge’s order in response to Triller’s failed attempt to show cause can be found here (pdf). Triller’s new $50m lawsuit targeting the H3 Podcast can be found here (pdf) Triller Hits H3 Podcast With $50m Jake Paul Piracy Lawsuit, Judge Guts Original Complaint
  6. Triller Wants Google & YouTube To Unmask Jake Paul vs Ben Askren Pirates Last week Triller filed a $100m lawsuit against several sites claiming that they illegally streamed the Jake Paul vs Ben Askren fight. The judge says that since Triller has failed to provide evidence that they acted jointly, one or more of the targets could be dropped from the lawsuit. Triller says that evidence will be forthcoming but it needs permission to quickly subpoena Google and YouTube. Triller’s widely publicized $100m lawsuit against sites that allegedly streamed the Jake Paul vs. Ben Askren fight on April 17 has hit complications. In its complaint, Triller identified several domains and what appears to be individuals, describing them as “business entities” that breached its copyrights. The lawsuit also referenced 100 John Does. This week, Triller offered an amnesty package to those who watched the fight without permission but the main lawsuit is already facing some pushback from the court. Triller Provided No Evidence to Show That Defendants Acted Jointly Triller’s initial targets included FilmDaily.com, AccessTVPro.co, Online2LiveStreams.us, CrackStreamsLive.com, Sports-Today.club, My-Sports.club, BilaSport.com, Trendy Clips, Mike, Your Extra, Eclipt Gaming, and ItsLilBrandon. The company later added the H3 Podcast and H3H3 Productions in an amended complaint but the court isn’t convinced they should all be included in one lawsuit. In an order to show cause, Judge Percy Anderson highlights Triller’s claims that the defendants’ actions were “undertaken jointly and with the consent, conspiracy, cooperation, and joint participation of all defendants” and that “each defendant was the agent, joint venture, and/or employee of each and every other defendant.” The Judge isn’t convinced, at least from the evidence at hand, that is actually the case, stating that the defendants have no apparent connection to one another. “Other than these conclusory allegations, the Complaint does not contain any well-pleaded facts that plausibly support even an inference that Defendants acted jointly,” he writes. “For these reasons, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than May 10, 2021, why one or more of the Defendants should not be dropped from this case for improper joinder.” Triller Believes The Defendants Are Properly Joined In its response to the order to show cause, Triller argues that the defendants are properly joined because they are jointly and severally liable for Triller’s claims under the Copyright Act and that Triller’s claims against the defendants arise from the same transaction, i.e the broadcast of the Jack Paul boxing event. Triller says it is also “aware of certain facts” that demonstrate that the defendants had knowledge that other defendants illegally uploaded and distributed the broadcast. “For example, while unlawfully re-distributing the Broadcast, certain Defendants informed their viewers, subscribers, and fans of other Defendants’ unlawful redistributing of the Broadcast,” the company writes. However, Triller seems to acknowledge that at least at the moment, it will have difficulty showing other connections between the defendants because it doesn’t yet know who they are. As a result, Triller is asking the court not to dismiss any defendants from the lawsuit before it has had a chance to identify them. And it wants to do that quickly. Ex Parte Application for Expedited Discovery In an application filed Wednesday, Triller says that it is seeking limited discovery on an expedited basis in order to learn more about the “nature and extent” of alleged ongoing infringement by the defendants. The company says that it needs this in order to obtain evidence to support an imminent request for a preliminary injunction. “In particular, Triller seeks to serve subpoenas upon various online platforms — including YouTube LLC and Google LLC — and domain name registrars to learn Defendants’ true identities,” the company writes. “Registrars are required to maintain records of the individuals who and entities that register domain names. Such records will assist Triller in ascertaining Defendants’ true identities. Without the discovery in order to unearth Defendants’ true identities from behind their online aliases, Triller will be unable to seek an injunction halting Defendants’ unlawful conduct.” While observers will note that the fight card began and indeed ended on April 17, Triller says it needs to act quickly to prevent the defendants from rebroadcasting its original broadcast, infringing its copyrights. As such, it needs permission to conduct discovery quickly in order to avoid irreparable harm. The company adds that since the court acknowledges that additional evidence is required to show that the defendants acted jointly, granting discovery before the court’s May 10 deadline is a good reason to press ahead. Triller Wants to Subpoena Google and YouTube In its application, Triller provides a pair of proposed subpoenas – one targeting Google and the other YouTube. They are substantially the same in respect of the information demanded, i.e “All personal identifying information, including, but not limited to (i) name, (ii) mailing address, (iii) email address, (iv) phone number, and (v) history of credit card purchases” related to the defendants. What is curious about the first request to Google is that Triller does not identify any specific Google accounts, users, URLs, or other identifying information specific to its platform. It merely demands that Google hands over all information it holds on the various domains listed in the original and amended complaints. The proposed YouTube subpoena is more specific. While demanding the same personal information, it lists various YouTube channels such as Trendy Clips, Mike, Your Extra, Eclipt Gaming, ItsLilBrandon, the H3 Podcast, and H3H3 Productions. The request is not without its issues. The URLs supplied for Your Extra, Eclipt Gaming, and ItsLilBrandon are all the same and point to the Mike channel, so will presumably lead to the same entity. However, the URL for the Mike channel itself is wrong and in fact leads to absolutely nothing. While the proposed subpoena to YouTube seems like it could yield more fruit than the one targeting Google, Triller appears to have left out an important aspect of its expedited discovery application. The company mentions domain registrars as having the ability to assist Triller in ascertaining the defendants’ true identities but has filed no request to subpoena any. Triller’s response to the order to show cause and its application for discovery can be found here and here (pdf) Triller Wants Google & YouTube To Unmask Jake Paul vs Ben Askren Pirates
  7. When talk of a possible TikTok ban began in July, the leaders of a small social video app called Triller saw a growth opportunity. To attract users, the company set its sights on TikTok’s biggest names. Some of the Sway Boys, a group of TikTok influencers, had been toying with the idea of building their own app to compete with TikTok, but after a discussion with Ryan Kavanaugh, the majority owner of Triller and a veteran entertainment executive, they decided the platform could be good for them. Triller offered the creators a deal: Tell your audience on TikTok that you’re moving to Triller, and we’ll give you equity and roles within the company. You can still post on TikTok, they were told, but only if you post on Triller more frequently. In turn, of the Sway Boys, Josh Richards, 18, was named Triller’s chief strategy officer, and Griffin Johnson, 21, and Noah Beck, 19, joined as advisers with equity. Soon, CNBC, Fox News and The Los Angeles Times were writing about TikTok defectors bound for Triller, an app they described as a viable replacement for TikTok should a ban be put in place. In August, Triller announced it was seeking a new funding round of $250 million, hiking its valuation to over $1 billion. When talk of a possible TikTok ban began in July, the leaders of a small social video app called Triller saw a growth opportunity. To attract users, the company set its sights on TikTok’s biggest names. Some of the Sway Boys, a group of TikTok influencers, had been toying with the idea of building their own app to compete with TikTok, but after a discussion with Ryan Kavanaugh, the majority owner of Triller and a veteran entertainment executive, they decided the platform could be good for them. Triller offered the creators a deal: Tell your audience on TikTok that you’re moving to Triller, and we’ll give you equity and roles within the company. You can still post on TikTok, they were told, but only if you post on Triller more frequently. In turn, of the Sway Boys, Josh Richards, 18, was named Triller’s chief strategy officer, and Griffin Johnson, 21, and Noah Beck, 19, joined as advisers with equity. Soon, CNBC, Fox News and The Los Angeles Times were writing about TikTok defectors bound for Triller, an app they described as a viable replacement for TikTok should a ban be put in place. In August, Triller announced it was seeking a new funding round of $250 million, hiking its valuation to over $1 billion. Source
×
×
  • Create New...