American satellite and broadcast provider Dish Network is continuing its legal battles against alleged pirate streaming services.

The company previously filed a lawsuit against the people behind TVAddons and the ZemTV Kodi addon, but it’s fighting on more fronts too.

The largest success thus far was its case against “Shava TV,” which was filed back in 2015. Last year this resulted in a $25,650,000 judgment in favor of Dish, but that didn’t mean that the problems were over.

Shava TV reportedly continued its business and despite a contempt order against the operators, as well as several domain seizures, the boxes are still widely available. Not just on the Internet, but also in bricks-and-mortar stores.

This prompted Dish to file a new lawsuit at a federal court in New York this week. This time, the company is targeting several dealers located in New York, as well as a distributor.

The complaint lists the New York stores “ABC Wireless NYC,” and “ Family Phone” and accuses these of selling infringing Shava TV boxes. Goyal Group is accused of selling and distributing the boxes to various dealers.

“DISH sues for contributory copyright infringement because Defendants knew that Shava TV set-top boxes and service plans were providing access to television channels exclusively licensed to DISH and materially contributed to direct copyright infringement by Shava and persons purchasing Shava TV set-top boxes and services from Defendants,” the filing reads.

According to Dish, the defendants continued to sell and promote Shava TV despite multiple demands to cease the activity. This, despite the fact that a contempt order issued in the original Shava TV case specifically forbids them from doing so.

The contempt order, issued in February by US District Court Judge Thomas Ellis, enjoined several US dealers of Shava TV from engaging in infringing activities.

Dish notified the defendants

“Defendants actually know that the retransmission of the Protected Channels on the Shava TV service infringes DISH’s copyrights. Defendants disregarded DISH’s written demands […] and the Contempt Order, and are continuing to distribute, sell, and promote Shava TV set-top boxes and services,” the complaint reads.

“Defendants did not acknowledge or respond to any of these written demands or the court orders, nor did they take any action to comply.”

The broadcast provider argues that the stores and the distributor are liable for contributory copyright infringement. Dish asks the court to issue an injunction to stop the infringing activity and requests statutory damages to compensate its losses.

—

A copy of Dish Network’s complaint against Goyal Group, Family Phone, ABC 1 NYC and ABC Wireless is available here (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Source link

Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom has suffered a major setback in his long-running battle with United States authorities over defunct file-sharing site Megaupload.

In a decision handed down this morning, New Zealand’s Court of Appeal ruled that he and three former colleagues – Matthias Ortmann, Bram van der Kolk and Finn Batato – are eligible for extradition to the United States to face a raft of charges including copyright infringement, money laundering, and racketeering.

“We are satisfied that New Zealand law permits extradition for copyright infringement in the circumstances of this case. That is so although we have held, contrary to previous authority, that double criminality is required in extradition between New Zealand and the United States. The appellants are accused of conduct that, if proved, would establish extradition offences in New Zealand law,” the ruling reads.

“Parliament has made a policy decision to protect copyright owners, conferring upon them the exclusive right to copy their works. A criminal offence is committed by anyone who knowingly possesses an infringing digital copy of a protected work in the course of business with a view to committing any act, such as online dissemination, that infringes the copyright.”

Megaupload was raided and shut down in 2012 following a joint operation between New Zealand and United States authorities. For the past six years, Dotcom has fought every detail of his case. With today’s ruling, the extradition process itself has already been analyzed and ruled upon by three different courts.

In a statement issued by Dotcom this morning, the entrepreneur expressed disappointment but again insisted that the fight is far from over.

“In its written judgment, the Court has decided not to record or engage with, our primary and strong submissions on why there was no criminal copyright infringement. At the hearing it did. This is obviously extremely disappointing,” he wrote.

Previously, the High Court agreed with the defense that Dotcom could not be extradited to the U.S. on copyright infringement offenses alone, as communication of copyrighted content to the public is not a criminal offense in New Zealand. However, in a ruling handed down last year, the judge framed the matter as fraud, an extraditable offense.

“If the Court of Appeal did accept we were right, as the High Court did, then the Court would need to find that the United States’ case to extradite me fails. Our submissions on why that must follow are very strong and rely on international authority,” Dotcom said this morning.

The Megaupload founder has long insisted that a negative decision in his case would have wider implications than simply his extradition to the United States. He says that the Court’s ruling exposes local ISPs to criminal liability for the misuse of their services by users, something that was never intended under local law. But he warns that the battle will not end here.

“As people know, I am prepared to fight to get justice, whether it is for me or others. I will appeal to the Supreme Court. Just yesterday, the United States accepted that right exists,” he said.

“My legal team are confident that the Supreme Court will hear the appeal given there are such significant legal issues at stake. Many important cases in New Zealand are not won in the Court of Appeal, or in the Courts below, but are won when they reach the Supreme Court. My case will be one of those.”

Dotcom lawyer Ira Rothken took to Twitter to echo the words of his client.

We are disappointed with today’s Judgment by the NZ Court of Appeal in the @KimDotcom case. We have now been to three courts each with a different legal analysis – one of which thought that there was no copyright infringement at all. We will seek review with the NZ Supreme Court.

— Ira Rothken (@rothken) July 4, 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The decision handed down today does not attempt to determine the guilt of Dotcom and his co-defendants, simply that there is a “prima facie case to support the allegations that the appellants conspired to, and did, breach copyright wilfully and on a massive scale for commercial gain”.

If extradited to the United States, the quartet faces charges including copyright infringement, racketeering, and money laundering, which carry jail terms of up to 20 years.

The full decision can be found here (pdf)

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Source link

For the past several years, the UK government has published findings from its Online Copyright Infringement (OCI) tracker, which measures the level of online copyright infringement carried out by people 12 years or older.

This morning the UK Intellectual Property Office published the eighth wave of research.

Infringement levels

The study found that 15% of UK Internet users aged 12+ (around 6.5 million people) consumed at least one item of online content illegally in the three month period to March 2018.

In common with previous years, the main content areas covered were music, film, TV, software, eBooks and video games. An additional category of ‘sports content’ was added this time around, something which increased overall infringement by 0.9%.

First up, good news for the movie industry, with infringement levels among movie consumers down from 21% in 2017 to 19% in 2018. Software enjoyed an even more impressive drop, from 26% last year to 20% in 2018. But for other sectors, the news isn’t so good.

Music, for example, is up one point in 2018 to 19%. TV shows increased by the same margin to 23%. Ebooks increased from 11% last year to 13% in 2018 with only videogames remaining static at 16%. New entrant ‘sports content’ got its first reading, pegged at 21%

There was also a reported decline in the use of BitTorrent by infringers (from 11% of infringers in 2017 to 7% this year), while the use of Kodi remained relatively unchanged at around 12% of infringers.

Who are the infringers?

“Looking at infringers of any of the six key content types, those who downloaded or streamed/accessed content illegally were skewed towards those aged under 35 (making up 66% of all infringers). It was also slightly skewed towards men (58%),” the IPO reports.

In terms of movement, there is again good news and bad news.

In the younger age category spanning 12 to 15-year-olds, infringement was down from 25% in 2017 to 22% in 2018. Among 16 to 24-year-olds, there was also a decline, from 27% to 25%. However, letting the side down were those in the older group, whose infringing increased from 9% in 2017 to 12% in 2018.

Reasons for infringement and deterrance

“Reasons for infringing remained largely similar to those given in 2017. ‘Convenience’ (41%) drops slightly and is overtaken once again by ‘it is free’ (44%),” the IPO reports.

“‘It means I can try something before I buy it’ and ‘because I can’ see a further significant decline to 15% and 13% respectively.”

The top reasons cited by respondents for not infringing in future were “if legal services were cheaper” (22%) and, somewhat surprisingly, “if it was clearer what is legal and what isn’t” (21%). These were followed up with better legal availability of content (18%) and more timely delivery (16%).

Supporting similar conclusions in research elsewhere, the study found increasing use of premium legal services among infringers and non-infringers alike.

65% of those who consumed any of the six content types during the three-month sampling period paid for at least some of it, up from 60% in 2017. Contributing to that figure is the proportion of infringers who also use Netflix, for example, which increased from 29% in 2017 to 33% in 2018.

In common with previous years, only a small number of people declared that piracy is the only option for them. These ‘hardcore pirates’ made up just one in ten of infringers.

Overall digital content consumption

When looking at all types of content consumption the survey found no significant shift, with 58% of respondents claiming to have done so in the sampling period, down slightly on 2017 levels.

“Despite no changes in the overall consumption level within the ‘past three months’, differences across content types can be seen,” the IPO notes.

“Looking at the proportion of individuals consuming within our categories the streaming of films continues to rise significantly (from 26% to 28% in 2018). TV programmes, on the other hand saw a significant decrease in both downloading and streaming, leading to an overall decline in consumption.”

Also of interest is the shift towards premium services and how that has affected those available for free.

“Although usage of premium services like Netflix and Now TV have increased significantly, free services like BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub and All 4 have all declined, leading to a net reduction. YouTube continues to see increased usage overall with over half now using the service,” the report notes.

“The proportion of people who only consume free content continues to fall as more services move to premium models. This is an indication that people are chasing the best content and are willing to pay for ease of access to it.”

When looking at spending per consumer, the figures are largely the same, with £74 in 2018, down £1 on 2017’s level. This, the IPO concludes, could be down to the decline in physical content purchases and flat-rate subscription service use.

The report’s findings were cautiously welcomed by Sam Gyimah, Minister for IP.

“The variety of legitimate services now available to consumers is extraordinary and our world-leading creative industries have made great strides in meeting the demands of viewers and fans, so there really is no excuse for the ongoing use of illegal services,” Gyimah said.

“Today’s findings are a positive step forward in stamping out online copyright infringement, but we cannot afford to be complacent. We are committed to tackling piracy and helping this vibrant sector go from strength to strength through our Creative Industries Sector Deal, a major part of our modern Industrial Strategy.”

The survey, funded by the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) and undertaken by Kantar Media, can be found here.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Source link

Due to unlicensed copyrighted content being made available on YouTube and similar platforms, millions of citizens around the world are able to consume the same at rates close to free.

This, of course, is a situation that’s completely unacceptable to the content industries, the record labels in particular. While sites like YouTube compensate them for views of authorized content, the existence of unlicensed content uploaded by users means that the Google-owned video giant gains an unfair negotiating position, or so the claims go.

Soon, however, the labels hope that the free content ride will be over. In an attempt to plug the so-called “Value Gap”, they have lobbied strongly for new legislation (Article 13) that would see user-uploaded content platforms compelled to install filters to detect infringing content before it’s even made available to the public.

Two weeks ago, the Legal Affairs Committee of the Parliament (JURI) voted on Article 13. With a 15 to 10 majority, the proposal of Rapporteur Voss was adopted. This means that the plans move ahead in their current form, despite massive and persistent public outcry.

This Thursday, a plenary vote on the JURI mandate will take place, so it’s no surprise that both sides of the debate are rallying to ensure that their voices are heard. In recent days, more than 80 creative sector groups and companies called on MEPs to support their position, that “playing fair” is the only way forward.

Billions and billions at stake…

“We represent 4.5% of EU GDP and 12 million European jobs. We are the heart and soul of Europe’s plurality and rich identities. On July 5 we ask for you to back the mandate adopted by JURI on 20 June which is the result of long and intense negotiations,” they wrote.

“There is a cynical campaign from tech companies flooding the inboxes of MEPs with scaremongering that the copyright directive would be the end of the internet. Please note that this is the 20th anniversary of their first claim that copyright provisions would break the internet. This has never happened. We need an Internet that is fair and sustainable for all.”

The signatories to the appeal represent countless multi-billion dollar companies whose interests will no doubt cause MEPs to sit up and listen. However, opponents of Article 13 are not sitting idly and hoping for the best. In an open letter published this week by Copybuzz, more than 145 organizations hit back, warning MEPs that Article 13 represents a serious threat to online freedom.

Supported by groups including EFF, Creative Commons, COMMUNIA Association, Public Knowledge and Wikimedia, the letter highlights objections that the proposed legislation threatens innovation by making it more difficult for startups to go about their business without fear of litigation.

“We represent startups which generate 9.5% of total European GDP and 2.5% of the labour market. We are the innovators that have chosen to embrace the future digital enables rather than grasp at the past. We are the believers of healthy competition, where barriers to entry should not be raised by poorly thought through regulation, to the detriment of millions of European innovators,” they write.

“We represent human rights and digital rights who defend the core values of what has made the European Union’s democratic model thrive. We believe that our fundamental rights are priceless and we advocate for strong safeguards when fundamental rights are at risk, as in this case.

“By defending a democratic and open internet, we defend the same internet that allows human rights defenders to expose actions from oppressive governments and monopolies, while allowing a wide range of business models to enjoy their fundamental freedom to conduct a business.”

The groups warn that Article 13 poses a threat to education and access to information and will seriously damage the capacity to improve software via hubs that develop connected products.

“Because of all of the above, we urge you to vote for a public debate on the Directive and, therefore, against the negotiating mandate,” they conclude.

With the vote just two days away the pressure is likely to continue, with both sides digging in. At this stage there’s only one thing they can agree on – that the imposition of upload filters will change everything.

Who that will positively and negatively affect will be for history to decide.

The full letter can be found here (pdf)

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Source link