During March, US-based author John Van Stry filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Travis McCrea, the operator of controversial eBook download platform eBook.bike.

McCrea initially opted not to become involved in the US lawsuit and in June, Van Stry’s lawyers filed for a default judgment in a Texas court.

In common with most copyright cases, this one isn’t straightforward and seems to have been complicated by McCrea’s early non-participation. However, the former Pirate Party of Canada leader eventually had a change of heart. He recently asked the Court to consider accepting late motions to vacate the default, dismiss the case, and/or change the venue.

Following a recent telephone conference, Judge William Bryson issued an order in response to those requests.

In respect of Van Stry’s motion for default (which had the potential to put McCrea on the hook for around $150,000 in statutory damages), that has now been vacated, meaning that McCrea will be able to fight his corner.

On the question of venue and personal jurisdiction (McCrea resides in Canada), the eBook.bike operator wasn’t so lucky. In his order, the Judge concluded that in a copyright infringement case like this, Van Stry’s location is the deciding factor, since that’s where the alleged injury was caused.

“Based on the evidence before the Court, the location of the copyright holder is his current residence within the Eastern District of Texas. Therefore, with respect to personal jurisdiction and venue, the Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas,” the order reads.

As reported previously, McCrea asked the Court to dismiss the entire case, based on his assertion that the DMCA takedown notices filed with eBook.bike by Van Stry were deficient. Among other things, McCrea argued, precise URLs for the allegedly-infringing content were not provided.

In another setback, the Judge denied McCrea’s motion to dismiss, “holding that the complaint, which alleges proper notification of claimed infringement under 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3) and other facts challenging the applicability of the DMCA safe harbor, is sufficient to state a claim for copyright infringement at the pleading stage.”

A control order is now on the docket, indicating – among other things – that jury selection for the trial will take place during June 2020. Whether the parties will agree to settle in the meantime is open to question but as costs continue to mount (both McCrea and Van Stry have complained about cash shortages recently), that might be the sensible outcome.

Not least since eBook.bike has been down for weeks and is showing no signs of returning.

The related court orders can be found here and 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

In recent years website blocking has become one of the most widely-used anti-piracy enforcement mechanisms in the world.

ISPs in several dozen countries are now required to prevent subscribers from accessing a variety of ‘pirate’ sites. While new blocks are added every month, research on their effectiveness has been rather scarce.

Most ‘studies’ promoted by copyright holders conclude that blocking a site does indeed reduce traffic to the affected domains. While this is hardly surprising, less is known about where ‘blocked’ subscribers go instead.

Do they simply give up and stop pirating? Are they finding ways to circumvent blockades? Do they decide to sign up for a paid streaming service such as Netflix? As it turns out, all of the above can be answered positively, according to one of the most details studies on site blocking.

In a paper titled The Effect of Piracy Website Blocking on Consumer Behavior, researchers connected to the Carnegie Mellon University’s IDEA program thoroughly researched the effect of various blocking orders in the UK.

The latest version of the peer-reviewed paper, which will soon be published in the Management Information Systems Quarterly, builds on earlier findings that we’ve reported on in the past.

For example, the researchers found that when ISPs only blocked The Pirate Bay in the UK in 2012, not much happened. Pirates were still pirating but simply switched to alternative sites or Pirate Bay mirrors. Others circumvented the blockades by using VPNs.

Follow-up research, looking at the effect of 19 additional sites that were blocked by UK ISPs in 2013, revealed a different trend. Blocking more sites decreased the numbers of visits to pirate sites, but only cyberlockers.

This was later confirmed with data from an even larger blocking wave from 2014, which also found that visits to other unblocked pirate sites decreased. These data also revealed another interesting trend. The broader blocking effort also increased the number of visits to paid streaming services such as Amazon and Netflix.

The latest article expands on the last finding by estimating whether the blockades actually increased the number of subscriptions. This, opposed to the possibility that pirates were already subscribed and simply used the legal services more after the blocks.

To do this, the researchers looked at ‘pirates’ who repeatedly visited legal services after the blockades, but didn’t before, and compared this to people who were not pirating. This shows that the blocks increased the number of paid subscriptions to streaming services.

“We show that blocking 53 sites in 2014 caused treated users to decrease piracy and to increase their usage of legal subscription sites by 7-12%. It also caused an increase in new paid subscriptions,” the researchers write in their paper.

“Together, these results imply that supply-side antipiracy enforcement can be effective in turning users of illegal piracy channels toward paid legal
consumption,” the paper adds.

It has to be noted that the estimated increase in subscriptions is relatively small. It’s just 1.1 percentage points higher than in the control group of people who were not affected by the blocks. That said, this translates to around 50,000 new subscribers in the UK, which is pretty significant.

Overall the research finds that there are varying responses to pirate site blockades. Some may circumvent them by using alternative pirate sites or signing up for a VPN, while others increasingly turn to legal alternatives.

In addition to this, one of the main messages is that blocking multiple sites at once is more effective than blocking just a single site. Broader blocks are likely to make it harder for people to find pirated content and, as a result, some people appear to give up.

The researchers illustrate this by pointing at the ‘Hydra’ comparison, which has been used by The Pirate Bay as well in the past. In Greek mythology, the Hydra is a beast that’s particularly hard to kill, as it has multiple heads that can grow back.

“Blocking a single site is akin to decapitating only one of the Hydra’s heads. The result will only be a more diffuse network of piracy sites, with no curb on pirating activity,” the researchers write.

Stabbing the Hydra in the hard is the only way to kill it effectively. While that may be impossible in the pirate ecosystem, cutting off as many heads as possible comes close. Especially if these heads are important sources for other sites.

“Blocking multiple sites at once is akin to decapitating several of the Hydra’s heads. With the network of sites significantly disrupted, this could possibly be a mortal wounding. We have shown that users’ behavior is sufficiently disrupted and that some increase the use of legal channels, and reduce illegal ones,” the paper concludes.

The website blocking research was carried out as part of Carnegie Mellon University’s Initiative for Digital Entertainment Analytics (IDEA), which received a generous donation from the MPAA. However, the researchers stress that their work is carried out independently.

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

The Internet Archive (archive.org) is a nonprofit library of millions of free books, movies, software and music.

Founded back in 1996, it’s considered one of the most important sites on the entire Internet, not least for its Wayback Machine which provides an unrivaled history of pages published on the web.

Like all platforms of its type, the Internet Archive contains copyrighted material, some of it present without rightsholders’ permission. While the platform previously stated it has some reservations concerning the DMCA, it acknowledges that ‘safe harbor’ provisions are vital to the existence of libraries such as the one it offers via Archive.org.

Internet Archive is required to respond to properly presented DMCA takedown notices but over in Russia, where the site provides millions of visitors with an invaluable service, things are on the brink of going seriously wrong.

The issues stem from the Internet Copyright Protection Association (AZAPI), an anti-piracy group which in part represents the rights of authors.

According to AZAPI, Archive.org has been making available a pair of audiobooks – Metro 2033 by Dmitry Glukhovsky and Third Eye Diamond by Daria Dontsova – without obtaining permission from rightsholders. It’s unclear whether AZAPI filed simple takedown notices with the Internet Archive to have the titles taken down but the matter eventually went to court.

Digital rights group Roskomsvoboda reports that on May 13, 2019, the Moscow City Court examined the case involving Metro 2033 and decided in AZAPI’s favor. It subsequently issued an order preventing the Internet Archive (Archive.org) from “creating technical conditions” that result in the audiobook detailed by the plaintiff being made available to the public.

According to Roskomsvoboda, whose lawyers are now representing Internet Archive, the digital library was not involved in the initial hearing and was not advised of the outcome. An appeal against that decision is now underway.

Nevertheless, AZAPI, still returned for another bite of the cherry, complaining that another audiobook, Third Eye Diamond by Daria Dontsova, was also being made available via Archive.org.

A hearing in that case took place August 16, with AZAPI stepping up its demands to have Internet Archive (Archive.org) permanently blocked by all ISPs in Russia. However, the case has hit a roadblock due to AZAPI failing to provide evidence that the company behind the audiobook actually has the rights to the work.

As a result, another hearing in the matter is set to take place mid-September. Whether or not the Moscow court will then order Internet Archive to be permanently blocked in Russia remains to be seen but it certainly hasn’t shied away from blocking other huge platforms in the past, Sci-Hub as a prime example.

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

Those involved in the sale of unlicensed IPTV services appear to be coming under attack from an increasing number of angles.

Just this week, the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment confirmed that it was behind the closure of previously popular IPTV service Vader Streams.

Just days earlier, the UK’s Federation Against Copyright Theft said it had served cease-and-desist notices in 16 locations to individuals involved in the supply of infringing sports streams, with at least some acting as resellers of ‘pirate’ IPTV services.

Today, another well-known provider is added to the growing list.

IPGuys is a recognized brand in the IPTV space. It has no website of its own, with subscribers to the service gaining access through a network of resellers. For how much longer that will be the case will remain to be seen, as the service is now being sued in the United States.

In a lawsuit filed by DISH Networks and NagraStar yesterday, the broadcaster names Ontario, Canada-based Tomasz Kaczmarek as the operator of IPGuys.

“Kaczmarek operates an illicit streaming service called IPGuys, where he acquires DISH’s satellite broadcasts of television programming and retransmits that programming without authorization to customers of his IPGuys service,” the complaint reads.

According to DISH, Brooklyn, New York-based husband and wife team John and Julia Defoe participate in the “rebroadcasting scheme” by creating and maintaining DISH subscription accounts that are used to supply the IPGuy’s service with DISH’s programming.

The additional Does 1-10 are described as “one or more persons” responsible for DISH subscription accounts that were created with false information and used to supply DISH content to the scheme.

DISH says the accounts were created through a former retailer in Brooklyn named Ratiann Enterprise Inc. and registered to addresses in the same area. The company hopes that the discovery process will enable it to identify the people behind those accounts.

The suit states that DISH used technical means to determine that the content being offered by IPGuys originated from its satellite broadcasts.

“During testing of the IPGuys service, encoded messages delivered as part of DISH’s satellite communications were detected on the DISH Programming retransmitted on the IPGuys service, confirming the DISH Programming provided by Kaczmarek is originating from DISH’s satellite communications and DISH subscriber accounts,” the complaint reads.

Seven of the so-called “seeder accounts” (the accounts that allegedly provided the content to IPGuys) shared one or more credit cards as the source of payment and all had either the same passwords or password hints, DISH adds.

Furthermore, the same credit cards were also used to pay for “at least twenty” additional subscriber accounts established with false information. One of the twenty accounts was held in the name of John Defoe, DISH claims, adding that Kaczmarek sent Julia Defoe “tens of thousands of dollars”, while specifically mentioning DISH.

From here, DISH begins to tackle some of the resellers of the IPGuys service, which offered the roughly $15 per month packages to the public. The primary sellers are named in the suit as Romie IPTV World, IPTV Bazaar, GetIPTVOnline and IPGuys-Live. Two secondary sellers are named as The Napster and Miracle Media Box Media.

DISH states that Kaczmarek and the Defoes were given notice by the company that their activities violated various aspects of the Federal Communications Act back in April 2019, but the IPGuys service continued to operate.

As a result, DISH is now demanding a broad permanent injunction against all defendants, plus actual or statutory damages of between $10,000 and $100,000 per violation, plus costs.

DISH’s complaint against the IPGuys operation 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