Mindgeek owns some of the most recognizable porn brands on the Internet, including Montreal-based production company Brazzers.
In common with most content companies, piracy is a problem for Mindgeek and its subsidiary MG Premium Ltd. In August we reported how the company had used DMCA subpoenas in an effort to identify uploaders on many ‘tube’ sites. This month, MG Premium has returned for another bite at the cherry.
In a DMCA subpoena application filed in Washington, MG Premium complains that “Cloudflare’s websites” YesPornPlease.com, Share.io, and a related domain are carrying infringing content to which the company owns the copyrights.
“MG is the owner of numerous copyrighted audiovisual works. In the course of protecting its works, MG has determined that infringing copies of these works, posted at the direction of individual users and without authorization from MG, appear on Cloudflare, Inc.’s websites YesPornPlease.com, share.io, and ezcgwym5xp7ty.com,” the application reads.
“Such infringements have been ongoing and MG has issued DMCA notifications to Cloudflare, Inc.’s DMCA Agent. All notifications have met the requirements of 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A) by setting forth, inter alia, a representative list of the copyrighted works that have been infringed and the identification and location on Cloudflare’s website of the infringing material.
“MG now seeks to obtain a DMCA Subpoena to learn the identity of the individuals who are posting the infringing content,” MG Premium adds.
The suggestion that the sites listed above are Cloudflare’s is obviously contentious. However, there also appears to be a subtle but important error in the application for a subpoena.
While MG Premium is clear in requesting information relating to uploaders on sites including ‘share.io’, that domain appears to have been submitted in error. According to supporting documents, the company should probably be referring to vShare.io instead.
Nevertheless, the application to unmask the uploaders of thousands of pieces of Brazzers content to the sites in question is pretty comprehensive and dates back more than three years.
“For the period January 1, 2016 through the present, produce all documents and account records that identify the person(s) or entities that caused the infringement of the material described in the attached Exhibit B DMCA notifications to the DMCA Agent for Cloudflare, Inc. and/or who unlawfully uploaded MG Premium Ltd’s copyrighted works at the URLS listed in the notifications..,” the application reads.
The information requested includes but is not limited to, names, email addresses, IP addresses, user histories, posting histories, physical addresses and telephone numbers.
As pointed out when a similar application was filed by MG Premium in August, it remains unclear how much information Cloudflare holds on third party sites’ users and whether it’s in a position to hand much over.
The key related documents are available here and here (pdf)
More recently, however, the tide began to turn. This year alone, Internet providers in several countries, including Ecuador and Peru, have been ordered to block the site. Last Friday, a court in Denmark did the same.
The Danish case was handled by the local anti-piracy group RettighedsAlliancen, which worked in tandem with the Spanish Football League ‘La Liga‘. Earlier this year, they already managed to get blocking orders against nine other websites, but the court postponed a ruling on Rojadirecta.
The reason for the delay was unusual. Contrary to pretty much every other website, Rojadirecta put up a defense. Among other things, the site argued that it’s not actively involved in selecting streaming links, as this happens automatically, and that many links actually point to authorized content.
La Liga, however, countered that some of its content was definitely linked without permission, adding that Rojadirecta profits from facilitating copyright infringement. As such, it requested an injunction ordering local ISP Telenor to block the site.
Telenor, which is the actual defendant, in this case, didn’t present any arguments.
After reviewing the positions of La Liga and Rojadirecta, the court sided with the former. In its ruling late last week, the Court of Frederiksberg ordered Telenor to block the site. As is common in Denmark, this means that other ISPs will voluntarily follow suit.
RettighedsAlliancen CEO Maria Fredenslund is happy with the outcome. It confirms that the blocking process is effective, she says, even when a targeted site puts up a defense.
“Rojadirecta appeared in court and presented a defense but was convicted and blocked nonetheless – just like other illegal services. It stands to confirm that the blocking system works even if it is challenged, and of course we are very pleased with this,” Fredenslund says.
Rojadirecta, on the other hand, is disappointed. A spokesperson informs TorrentFreak that it respects the outcome of the court proceeding. However, it is not happy with how RettighedsAlliancen and La Liga are selling it to the public.
The site stresses that there is no ‘conviction’ of Rojadirecta. The case was a matter between the rightsholders and an ISP. The burden of proof in these cases is relatively low as the claimant only has to show that it’s likely that an infringement occurred, the site’s spokesperson notes.
“The court has thus in the case merely made the assessment that RettighedsAlliancen has proven it likely that there have been illegal links at Rojadirecta and that the formal requirements for issuing a blocking injunction against the ISP were considered fulfilled,” Rojadirecta tells us.
Rojadirecta further notes that it didn’t get much advance notice – Rettighedsalliancen informed the site little over a week before the hearing was scheduled.
While the streaming link site managed to have a postponement put in place, it never had the chance to participate in an oral hearing. Instead, Rojadirecta was directed to submit its defense on paper.
It’s clear that Rojadirecta is not pleased with the blockade and the site is still deliberating whether it will file an appeal.
Aside from facing yet another ISP blockade, the damage for Rojadirecta as a business is minimal. The site has a relatively small userbase in Denmark, and since it wasn’t a defendant in the lawsuit, there are no damages that have to be paid.
That could change if RettighedsAlliancen and La Liga file a case against the site directly, to decide whether it’s indeed operating illegally or not. We asked RettighedsAlliancen whether this was an option, but the group informed us that it has no comment on that for now.
Rojadirecta is clear though. If RettighedsAlliancen and La Liga want the conviction they already claim they have, they need to fight the case on its merits.
For now, however, the court found that there is enough ground to have Rojadirecta blocked in Denmark. According to local regulations the preliminary ruling will have to be followed up by a case of the merits. However, the targeted ISP may waive this, after which the order becomes permanent.
—
A copy of the order from the Court of Frederiksberg, obtained by TorrentFreak, is available here (pdf).
One of the targeted apps was CotoMovies, a piece of software that provides unlimited access to pirated copies of movies and TV-shows, free of charge.
The legal pressure came from the makers of the action movie “Hellboy” and clearly had Tweakbox worried. However, they were not the only ones under the spotlight. Soon after our article was published CotoMovies announced that it would shut down.
Initially not much was known about the reason for this abrupt decision, although legal trouble seemed likely. Now, a few days later, we can indeed confirm that CotoMovies was urged to shut down by the makers of the films “Hellboy” and “Angel Has Fallen”.
A source close to the fire informs TorrentFreak that both parties negotiated a possible ‘settlement’. While we can’t confirm that any damages were paid, CotoMovies is now offering a public apology to the filmmakers on its homepage.
“I want to express my sincere regret to the owners of the motion pictures Hellboy and Angel Has Fallen as well as all rights holders for inducing and contributing to copyright infringements by my operation of the app CotoMovies,” the operator writes.
The CotoMovies operator notes that he or she learned from the “stressful legal experience” and now understands what damage movie piracy apps can cause. Going forward, the app’s creator promises not to infringe on any copyrights while urging the app’s users to do the same.
Needless to say, many users are disappointed to see their favorite app going offline. However, CotoMovies makes another statement that may be even more concerning. Apparently, the app’s creator agreed to transfer user data to the filmmakers.
“I now plan to fully respect intellectual property laws and strongly urge those who used my app to use legal apps to watch movies. To this end, I have agreed to transfer to counsel for the rights holders user data and communications under my possession and control so that they can enforce their valuable intellectual property,” CotoMovies writes.
The public apology and more
It’s not immediately clear what type of user data the app retained but the filmmakers plan to target some. The makers of “Hellboy” and “Angel Has Fallen” have previously targeted individual pirates in court, but they want to set an example with streamers as well.
TorrentFreak reached out to Kerry S. Culpepper, the attorney of the two movie companies to, find out more about their plans.
“I am happy that the app operator was willing to take responsibility for her/his actions, apologize and take this app down. This is something you don’t see too much of lately – people taking responsibility for their actions,” Culpepper said.
While the lawyer confirmed that they “more than likely” intend to go after CotoMovies users, Culpepper declined to comment on what type of data they have in their possession.
What’s crystal clear, however, is that the movie companies’ legal pressure tactic is paying off.
Jonathan Yunger, co-president of Millennium Media, which is the parent company of the movie companies that went after CotoMovies, is pleased with the progress they’ve made.
“Millennium greatly values their and other’s intellectual property. Millennium cannot keep making new movies if people steal Millennium’s movies through apps like these,” Yunger informed TorrentFreak.
Every single week, Internet users in the United States take to Reddit and other discussion forums seeking advice about copyright infringement notices.
Whether the claims against them are true is often hard to assess, but many speak of receiving notices from their ISP which state that a third-party has caught them torrenting something they shouldn’t – usually movies, TV shows, or music.
While any and all of them are able to speak directly to their ISP to find out what the notices are all about and what the consequences might be, many seem confused. Are they going to be sued, for example, or perhaps their Internet might get suspended or cut off completely?
Most advice dished out by fellow internet users is (and I’m paraphrasing), “Dumbass – use a VPN”, but while that comprehensively solves the problem, it doesn’t answer the big questions.
A common topic is how many notices a customer can receive from their ISP before things get serious. One might think this basic information would be easy to find but despite most major ISPs in the US stating that they don’t allow infringement and there could be consequences for receiving multiple complaints, more often than not their information pages aren’t specific.
So, in an effort to cut through all the jargon and put all the relevant information into one article, on August 27 we approached several of the major ISPs in the United States – Comcast, AT&T, Charter/Spectrum, Verizon, and CenturyLink – with a list of questions, detailed below;
Your company forwards copyright complaints from rightsholders, based on their claims. How many complaints can a subscriber have made against their account before some action is taken by you, beyond simply forwarding the notice to the subscriber?
What is the nature of that action, i.e requiring to confirm receipt of the notice, taking a copyright lesson, promising not to infringe again, etc?
Once this stage has been completed, how many more complaints against an account will trigger any subsequent action, i.e a more serious warning, warning that an account could be suspended etc?
At what point would a customer with multiple complaints against their account be considered a ‘repeat infringer’?
At what point could an account holder expect a temporary account suspension? At this point, how would that suspension be lifted?
At what point could an account holder expect a complete termination of his or her service?
In respect of points 5 and 6, is the number of complaints a deciding factor or does a subscriber’s negative or positive responses and actions in respect of your efforts to prevent infringement also play a part?
Are you able to confirm that accounts have been temporarily suspended for repeat infringement and if so, how many?
Are you able to confirm that accounts have been permanently shut down for repeat infringement and if so, how many?
We told the ISPs exactly why we were asking these questions and indicated that a response within seven days would guarantee their inclusion in this article. We extended the deadline to two weeks and beyond but not a single company listed above responded to any of our questions.
In fact, none even acknowledged receipt of our initial email, despite one ISP requiring us to send emails to at least three people involved in their media communications team. It seems fairly clear this potato is simply too hot to pick up.
That being said, we thought we should press on with at least trying to help subscribers.
There are usually very few valid excuses for receiving multiple copyright infringement complaints. Some do exist, of course, but not knowing the precise mechanism for being dealt with under various ISPs’ ‘repeat infringer’ rulesets only makes matters worse.
What we can do here is give relevant snippets/quotes from each ISP’s website and link to the page(s) in question, with a comment here and there. In no particular order:
AT&T: In accordance with the DMCA and other applicable laws, AT&T maintains a policy that provides for the termination of IP Services, under appropriate circumstances, if Customers are found to be a repeat infringer and/or if Customers’ IP Services are used repeatedly for infringement (the ‘Repeat Infringer Policy’). AT&T may terminate IP Services at any time with or without notice to Customers.
AT&T has no obligation to investigate possible copyright infringements with respect to materials transmitted by Customer or any other users of the IP Services. However, AT&T will process valid notifications of claimed infringement under the DMCA, and continued receipt of infringement notifications for Customer’s account will be used as a factor in determining whether Customer is a repeat infringer.
TF note on AT&T: We can find no “Repeat Infringer Policy”
CenturyLink:Company respects the intellectual property rights of others and is committed to complying with U.S. copyright laws, including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (‘DMCA’). Company reserves the right to suspend or terminate, in appropriate circumstances, the service of users whose accounts are repeatedly implicated in allegations of copyright infringement involving the use of Company’s network.
TF note: We have no idea what constitutes “appropriate circumstances.”
Comcast/Xfinity:Any infringement of third party copyright rights violates the law. We reserve the right to treat any customer account for whom we receive multiple DMCA notifications from content owners as a repeat infringer.
We reserve the right to move a customer account to the next step of the policy upon receiving any number of DMCA notifications from content owners in a given month, or upon learning that the account holder is a repeat infringer.
You may receive an email alert to the preferred email address on your account or a letter to your home address. You may also receive an in-browser notification, a recorded message to your telephone number on file, a text message to your mobile telephone number on file, or another form of communication.
Triggering steps under this policy may result in the following: a persistent in-browser notification or other form of communication that requires you to log in to your account or call us; a temporary suspension of, or other interim measures applied to, your service; or the termination of your Xfinity Internet service as well as your other Xfinity services (other than Xfinity Mobile).
TF note on Comcast: The ‘repeat infringer’ policy is quite detailed and worth the long read.
Cox Communications:Cox encourages responsible internet use. Our internet use policy is consistent with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and allows us to take steps when we receive notifications of claimed infringement.
Repeated notifications of claimed violations on your account could lead to Internet service suspension or termination.
If you continue to receive copyright infringement notifications on your account, Cox suspends your Internet service. In the Customer Portal, you may reactivate your Internet service up to two times.
If your account continues to receive copyright infringement notifications, your Internet service is terminated.
TF note on Cox: The repeat infringer policy is worth a read and is quite specific in parts, less so in others.
Spectrum/Charter: TF initial note: The company doesn’t appear to have a dedicated ‘repeat infringer’ policy outside of its published “copyright violation” advice. While this is both detailed and helpful in many respects, it doesn’t give specifics on alleged ‘repeat infringers’.
After noting that “Charter may suspend or disconnect your service as a result of repeat copyright violations,” users are sent to its Acceptable Use Policy page, which reads in part as follows:
Spectrum reserves the right to investigate violations of this AUP, including the gathering of information from the Subscriber or other Users involved and the complaining party, if any, and the examination of material on Spectrum’s servers and network.
Spectrum prefers to advise Users of AUP violations and any necessary corrective action but, if Spectrum, in its sole discretion, determines that a User has violated the AUP, Spectrum will take any responsive action that is deemed appropriate without prior notification. Such action includes but is not limited to: temporary suspension of service, reduction of service resources, and termination of service.
Verizon: Pursuant to Section 512 of the DMCA, it is Verizon’s policy to terminate the account of repeat copyright infringers in appropriate circumstances.
TF note: This appears to be the shortest ‘repeat infringer’ policy of all the ISPs and is a good example of why we decided to ask all of the companies for their precise steps, so we could offer a little more detail to their customers.
Sorry, we failed, but there’s probably a good reason for that.
Summary: With several ISPs up to their necks in lawsuits filed by the RIAA alleging that they haven’t done enough to deal with “repeat infringers”, it’s perhaps no surprise that the companies ignored our requests for information.
That being said, it’s of interest that several appear to be acting in a particularly vague manner – perhaps they’re already worrying that they’ll be next on the music industry’s list.
In the meantime and in most cases, users will remain largely in the dark unless they do a lot of reading and research. And even that might not be enough.
Last year Nintendo made headlines worldwide when it filed a lawsuit against the popular ROM sites LoveROMS.com and LoveRETRO.co.
The legal action effectively shut the sites down with many other platorms voluntarily following suit.
Not all game pirate sites were shaken up by the legal action though. RomUniverse, a site that’s been around for a decade, saw its visitor numbers rise and announced that it would continue to offer Nintendo ROMs.
Fast forward a year and Nintendo is now taking RomUniverse to court. In a complaint filed at a federal court in California, the Japanese gaming giant accuses the site’s alleged operator, Matthew Storman, of “brazen” and “mass-scale” copyright and trademark infringement.
“The Website is among the most visited and notorious online hubs for pirated Nintendo video games. Through the Website, Defendants reproduce, distribute, monetize, and offer for download thousands of unauthorized copies of Nintendo’s video games,” the complaint reads.
Nintendo states that the site, which has 375,000 members, offers downloads for nearly every video game system it has ever produced.
The complaint specifically notes that “hundreds of thousands of copies” have been illegally downloaded through RomUniverse, including nearly 300,000 copies of pirated Nintendo Switch games and more than 500,000 copies of pirated Nintendo 3DS games.
Users of the site can download one file per week for free. Those who want more have to sign up for a paid membership. After an “upgrade” of $30, members are allowed to download as many files as they want. This includes games, but also ebooks and the latest Hollywood movies.
As said before, RomUniverse wasn’t impressed by the legal threats Nintendo issued against other sites last year. This didn’t go unnoticed to the game publisher, which specifically mentions the operator’s defiance in its complaint.
“In 2018, around the time that Nintendo successfully enforced its intellectual property rights against other infringing ROM websites, defendant Storman bragged that his Website would continue to offer Nintendo ROMs,” Nintendo writes.
Through the lawsuit, which also lists a count of unfair competition, Nintendo hopes to shut RomUniverse down. The company also requests statutory damages of $150,000 per infringing Nintendo game and up to $2,000,000 for each trademark infringement.
This means that, with dozens of copyrighted titles and trademarks on the record, theoretical damages are well over $100 million.
Finally, Nintendo further asks for a permanent injunction ordering the site and its operator(s) to stop their infringing activities while handing over their domain names to the game publisher.
Update: RomAdmin from RomUniverse informed us that he hasn’t received anything from Nintendo, no recent takedown notices either. The site does respond to takedown notices.
“We’ve always immediately taken down questionable material, per their take down notices,” RomAdmin told TorrentFreak.
—
A copy of Nintendo’s complaint against Matthew Storman and any “John Doe” accomplices, is available here (pdf).
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/mario-featured.jpg2501200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-09-12 05:22:202019-09-12 05:22:20Nintendo Sues RomUniverse for Mass Copyright Infringement
LibreELEC 9.2 Beta1 (Leia) has arrived based upon Kodi v18.4, the 9.2 Beta1 release contains many changes and refinements to user experience and a complete overhaul of the underlying OS core to improve stability and extend hardware support.
Changes since LibreELEC 9.1.002:
updated to Kodi 18.4
improvements for the RPi4
bigger fonts at the update screen for 4k screens
several Bugfixes
Change for Raspberry 4:
With LE 9.1.002 and later you need to add “hdmi_enable_4kp60=1“ to your config.txt if you want to use 4k output at the RPi4. Before you needed “hdmi_enable_4k=1“ that is now deprecated.
Beta Notes:
LibreELEC 9.2 for Generic x86/64 and Raspberry Pi 0/1/2/3 devices is a solid beta quality release. Raspberry Pi 4B images are more “late stage Alpha” and are not feature complete or perfect. Normal LibreELEC testing rules apply; if you do not want to experiment on your family’s primary entertainment system – please stick with your current version and wait for the final/stable release. If you do want to experiment – please be prepared to submit log files and work with developers to hunt down problems and test solutions.
Raspberry 4:
It would be nice to have the 4B running the latest mainline kernel as other devices in LibreELEC 9.2, but adding support for an all-newSoC chipset is a huge effort and the Pi Foundation needed to align initial 4B software with the current Raspbian release to maximise compatibility with existing software and to keep the workload sensible. Generic x86/64 devices are running Linux 5.1, while Raspberry Pi devices (0/1/2/3/4) are using Linux 4.19 with some new/extra code.
In this initial release 1080p playback behaviour and performance on the 4B are broadly on-par with the previous 3B/3B+ model, except for HEVC media which is now hardware decoded and massively improved. New 4K video capabilities still have plenty of rough edges to be smoothed out, but the Pi Foundation developers have been pushing fixes to the Alpha test team at a phenomenal rate over the last month and that will continue as the userbase expands.
The 4B now uses SPI flash for the bootloader. Current firmware supports SD card boot only – Network and USB booting are still on the Pi Foundation to-do list. Also on the list is HBR audio (current audio capabilities are the same as the 3B) and 3D video. The 4B hardware is HDR capable, but software support has a dependency on the new Linux kernel frameworks merged by Intel developers (with help from Team LibreELEC/Kodi) in Linux 5.2 and a kernel bump will be needed to use them. Once the initial excitement and activity from the 4B launch calms down, serious work on HDR and transitioning Raspberry Pi over to the new GBM/V4L2 video pipeline can start.
Rockchip:
Our Rockchip releases remain in an Alpha state with limited support. The Kodi version is updated but there are no significant video/audio improvements to the Rockchip 4.4 kernel codebase – and none planned. Our work on Rockchip support has refocussed onto the Linux 5.x kernel to use the modern kernel frameworks needed for the next-generation Kodi video pipeline. This work is progressing nicely, but it means the 4.4 codebase “is what it is” until a future kernel bump.
Amlogic
Our original goal was to announce Allwinner and Amlogic images alongside Rockchip as part of the LibreELEC 9.2 release, but while overall readiness has greatly improved in recent months – each has specific technical challenges to overcome before they meet our basic critera for a public release. On the human side of the project several maintainers also have reduced availability for support due to work and family commitments. Combining these factors together, the team felt it was better to be patient and not rush releases.
So instead of releasing LibreELEC 9.2 alpha images we are announcing the start of official nightly images from our master development branch. At the moment the master branch uses Linux 5.2 and Kodi v18 so nightlies mirror LibreELEC 9.2, but in the near future we will start moving master towards Linux 5.3 and Kodi v19.
If you experience problems, please open an thread at our forum. You can also open an ticket at our issue tracker.
Upgrading
On first boot the Kodi media database will be upgraded. Depending on your hardware and media collection size this could take several minutes. Please be patient.
In many parts of the world, football – or soccer as some prefer to call it – is the number one spectator sport.
The English Premier League, widely regarded as one of the top competitions, draws hundreds of millions of viewers per year. Many of these pay for access to the matches, but there’s also a massive circuit of unauthorized streams.
In recent years the League has worked hard to decrease the availability of these live streams, which isn’t an easy feat. It has been a driving force behind criminal prosecutions, pursued dynamic blocking orders in court, and issued many takedown notices.
In the latest IP Crime and Enforcement Report, published by the UK Government’s Intellectual Property Office, the Premier League provides an overview of some of its key achievements over the past 12 months. These are the results of what the organization describes as a “multi-faceted” anti-piracy approach.
One of the key pillars of the anti-piracy drive is to reduce the availability of online streams and clips. This worked quite well, apparently, with the League reporting hundreds of thousands of removed or blocked live streams and other video content.
“In Season 2018/19 the Premier League removed or blocked over 210,000 live streams and over 360,000 clips of its matches that would otherwise have been available to view in the UK,” the report reads.
The dynamic blocking injunctions issued against UK ISPs are also listed as successes. With these, the Premier League can provide Internet providers with continuously updated lists of live streaming sources that need to be blocked during Premier League matches.
Another major achievement, which thus far hasn’t been publicized, is the Premier League’s involvement in the demise of the popular live stream subreddit ‘Soccerstreams’, which had over 420,000 subscribers. This subreddit was effectively shut down by its operators in January due to an increasing number of complaints.
Initially, the operators banned all user submissions, planning to use the subreddit for news announcements. However, not much later Reddit pulled it offline permanently for violating its repeat infringer policy.
Apparently, the Premier League was one of the main complainants, as the Soccerstreams ‘shutdown’ is listed among the organization’s largest successes of the past year. According to the report, the football league worked “with Reddit to close its ‘soccerstreams’ thread”
A similar victory was booked against another popular streaming site, Ronaldo7.net. While the site is still up and running, the Premier League notes that it previously secured the removal of all its content.
Offline there was progress made as well. According to the League, it conducted over 6,000 investigative visits to pubs, clubs, and other commercial venues where its content was displayed. This helped to prevent an unspecified number of illegal broadcasts.
The biggest success in court this year came from a criminal prosecution. Together with FACT, the Premier League went after three men who sold pirate IPTV subscriptions to more than 1,000 pubs, clubs and homes throughout England and Wales.
Following a four-week trial against the “Dreambox” defendants, the private prosecution resulted in prison sentences ranging from three years and three months to seven years and four months.
The same prosecution is also highlighted in a FACT case study in the same ‘IP Crime and Enforcement Report’. This overview ends with a strong focus on press coverage and the associated “advertising” value of the prosecutions.
“This result gathered worldwide media interest. It was mentioned in a total of 51 articles in no less than 16 countries worldwide, reaching a potential worldwide audience of over 165 million people. A BBC News article (pictured) had the largest reach, with a potential 35 million readers.
“The advertising value equivalent for the press received is estimated at over £1.5 million,” the FACT case study adds.
The comparison with advertising value may seem odd in this context, but it makes sense. The goal of prosecutions of this nature is not just to stop the infringing activities. FACT and the Premier League also want to send a clear message to other people participating in similar businesses, hoping they will stop.
While there are still plenty of pirate streaming operations online, the Premier League’s overview shows that the organization is taking the issue rather seriously. As such, it will likely continue in the same steps in the new season.
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/grass-soccer.jpg00Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-09-11 09:20:152019-09-11 09:20:15Premier League Claims Victories with Multi-Faceted Anti-Piracy Approach
Last year Cox settled its piracy liability lawsuit with music rights company BMG.
The ink on this agreement was barely dry when the ISP faced a similar and additional complaint. This time, it was up against 53 music companies, including Capitol Records, Warner Bros, and Sony Music.
The rightsholders complained that Cox categorically failed to terminate repeat copyright infringers and that it substantially profited from this ongoing ‘piracy’ activity. All at the expense of the record labels and other rightsholders.
A year later, thousands of pages of legal paperwork have been processed and the case is gearing up to a trial. However, if it’s up to Cox, there is little left to discuss there because the music companies’ evidence is fatally flawed.
A few days ago, the ISP submitted a motion for summary judgment, requesting summary judgment on several key elements. Among other things, Cox argues that it’s not vicariously liable or directly liable for any copyright-infringing activity carried out by its users.
Cox’s arguments are in large part directed at the proof the music companies have. Or to be more specific, the lack thereof. The company points out that the infringement notices, which were sent on behalf of the RIAA, are far from solid. In addition, the ISP says it never received any proper notices for more of the allegedly-infringed works.
“Plaintiffs’ claims suffer from a fundamental and fatal flaw: a distinct paucity of proof. They simply cannot prove their case,” Cox writes.
“In short, Plaintiffs seek damages for works they cannot prove were infringed, based on notices that did not identify fully 80% of those works. Moreover, they have no evidence that Cox knew about the infringement, obtained any direct financial benefit from it, or had the practical ability to prevent it, such that it could be secondarily liable.”
Cox’s arguments can be quite technical at times, and some pages are completely redacted, but there are some interesting observations.
For example, the company argues that the file-sharing evidence from BitTorrent users can’t prove that any subscriber actually distributed the infringing files. The evidence, provided by BitTorrent tracking outfit MarkMonitor, only ‘shows’ the metadata of a file in possession of a subscriber, matches that of a copyrighted track.
“Here, Plaintiffs cannot prove ‘actual dissemination’ of any work to anyone—including their agent, MarkMonitor,” Cox notes.
Another issue Cox raises is that for many of the claimed infringements in the suit, Cox never received a single notice.
“Although Plaintiffs seek damages for alleged direct infringements of 7,057 sound recordings and 3,421 compositions, the RIAA Notices for recordings sent during the Claims Period contain only 1,998 unique Title and Artist combinations.”
Based on these and a variety of other arguments, the ISP requests summary judgment. This means that, if granted, these will no longer be contested at trial.
However, the pendulum, in this case, can swing the other way as well. The 53 music companies also filed a request for summary judgment. They ask the court to rule that Cox is contributory and vicariously liable for its pirating subscribers.
The companies wave away any concerns and say that Cox willingly kept pirates on board to increase its profits.
“[T]he record is clear that Cox had knowledge of its subscribers’ blatant infringement of Plaintiffs’ works and nonetheless assisted them with it. By consciously continuing to provide Internet service to known infringers, while ignoring its own copyright policies as written, Cox materially contributed to that infringing activity, and reaped substantial financial benefits as a result,” their request reads.
“Accordingly, summary judgment should be granted holding Cox liable for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement, and the Court should reject its frivolous defenses.”
Both sides’ arguments directly oppose each other and it will be up to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to determine if it grants any of the motions. If the Court grants neither motion, it will be up to a jury to decide during trial.
—
A copy of Cox’s motion for summary judgment is available here (pdf) and the music companies’ motion can be found here (pdf).
Last month Creative Content UK (CCUK) switched up a gear with its Get it Right (From a Genuine Site) anti-piracy campaign.
After declaring that copyright-infringement notices sent to mainly BitTorrent users via ISPs had “served their purpose“, the BPI and MPA-led initiative turned to ‘social influencers‘ to send the message that content should be consumed via official channels, in order to support creators.
Popular YouTuber Caspar Lee featured in the first video, a move that was clearly aimed at younger consumers. That led us to consider whether future videos in the series, which are yet to be planned, would target a broader range of pirates – particularly older ones with whom Lee may not immediately resonate.
Speaking with TorrentFreak, CCUK confirms that its own research has looked at pirates aged between 16 and 50 years old. However, those who fall into the lower age bracket appear to be a prime target, since they are the most prolific consumers of content, on both sides of the legality fence.
“Our own research continues to show that 16 to 24-year-olds both consume and enjoy the most content of all types (film, TV, music, games, books, sport etc) – and that they also use unauthorized sources more than any other group – i.e. they use both genuine and dodgy sources,” the spokesperson notes.
That’s not to say older consumers aren’t a problem, however.
Those in the 25 to 34-year-old bracket still do their fair of pirating, as do those between 35 and 44. Even those crumbling away in the twilight years of 45+ pose infringement issues. However, these groups present sequentially diminishing patterns of infringing behavior, an indicator of why CCUK are looking to target those at the younger end of the scale.
“Looking across all of the data, in addition to the key 16-24-year-olds, we think that it is particularly important to address young males (16-35 years of age), ABC1’s and parents/other influencers of children (especially in the 25-34 year old group) as all are more likely to use unauthorised sources and services than other groups,” CCUK adds.
Targeting these age groups makes perfect sense for CCUK. Not only do they reach the most prolific infringers and consumers of legal content at the same time, those in the 25 to 34-year-old bracket – according to the latest statistics from the Office for National Statistics – are the most likely to have children, meaning any educational effect can be passed down.
“Other industry research shows that the problematic behavior often begins when children are between 11 and 15 years of age,” CCUK notes.
Given the scope of the campaign, the likes of Paul McCartney and Robert De Niro probably won’t feature in future videos, because despite being superstars in their own right, they are much less likely to resonate with younger people. Instead, CCUK seem likely to encourage more popular YouTubers and Instagram stars to take part, people to whom those of less advanced years can relate.
“So, as we continue this phase of the Get it Right initiative, we will be working hard to use voices and messages around the content that they love – that will reach and speak directly to those groups,” CCUK adds.
“Our work so far has shown clearly that this approach can get people’s attention and drive both behavior change and changes in attitude towards infringement. This is why we have such strong support from Government and industry to continue the work.”
While CCUK and its backers BPI and MPA will have their own thoughts about using more aggressive tactics to deter piracy, campaigns like these tend to be much less offensive to the general public than “You Wouldn’t Download…” type messages.
Time will tell if this one will prove any more effective in terms of legitimate content consumption but there doesn’t currently seem to be many voices in opposition, which on the Internet today is a great start.
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/groove-feat.jpg2681200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-09-10 13:18:142019-09-10 13:18:14Influencing Younger Pirates is a Key Aim of ‘Get it Right’ Campaign
After being founded in 2016, ‘pirate’ manga-focused site Mangamura was blamed for facilitating huge volumes of pirate downloads.
Previously, local anti-piracy group CODA estimated damages to the manga industry of around $2.91 billion. That all came to an end last year, however, after the site mysteriously shut down.
For those who contributed to the platform, the past is proving more difficult to leave behind. In July, alleded site mastermind Romi Hoshino, 28, was arrested in the Philippines when attempting to board a plane to Hong Kong. This morning, two alleged upoaders appeared in a Japan court facing charges of copyright infringement.
The first, a 26-year-old man called Kota Fujisaki, pleaded guilty at Fukuoka District Court to uploading copyrighted images to Mangamura in violation of Japan’s copyright law.
However, 24-year-old woman Shiho Ito pleaded not guilty to the same charges, Jiji reports.
According to the prosecution, Fjisaki and Ito uploaded images from the 866th episode of blockbuster manga series One Piece to Mangamura. The infringement was reportedly actioned from Fujisaki’s home in May 2017, an address where Ito also lived at the time.
The prosecution alleges the pair conspired with former site operator Hoshino to upload content to the site for the public to view without permission. It’s further alleged that Ito received payment for the uploads, cash that was used to cover the living expenses of the pair.
The manga series ‘One Piece’ is proving somewhat of a magnet for police and prosecutors in the Mangamura case. Last month, police in Fukuoka arrested a 37-year-old man under suspicion of uploading images of the hit series to the same site, again in May 2017.
Anime New Network reports that a man believed to be Adachi previously contacted the police trying to turn himself in for questioning. He was arrested at Fukuoka airport, after he arrived there from the Philippines via Taiwan.
