In many countries around Europe and further afield, blocking pirate sites is carried out with permission from the courts.
The process is often long and expensive in the first instance but once a precedent has been set, subsequent blocking of additional sites should – at least in theory – be a much more simple affair.
Japan has been struggling to introduce a similar system for some time now but has continually come up against opposition from those who believe that monitoring Internet users’ traffic in order to block various domains amounts to a privacy breach.
The Telecommunications Business Act guarantees privacy of communications and prevents censorship, as does Article 21 of the Constitution.
Additional proposals suggested that Internet users could be confronted with popup warnings when they visit pirate sites, either as an alternative to blocking, a deterrent, or to help people differentiate them from legal offerings. However, that plan is being viewed as a potential invasion of privacy too.
A report compiled this week by an expert panel with the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications has concluded that such popup warnings could infringe citizens’ right to secrecy of communications.
Asahi reports that in order to make this kind of system work, Internet service providers would first need to obtain consent from their subscribers so that monitoring their attempts to access certain sites would remain legal.
The publication says that after the panel sought opinions from the public on the proposal, it was “bombarded by emails” sent by people calling for the plan to be rejected on privacy grounds.
Given that ISPs in other regions have complained that they shouldn’t bear the costs associated with blocking and similar regimes, it’s no surprise that some in Japan are taking a similar stance. Other providers indicate that they’re not ready from a technological standpoint, which of course is also closely connected with costs.
Nevertheless, some ISPs have agreed to begin trialing a popup warning system during the fall, in order to assess its effectiveness. That will mean them first having to explain to their users that they wish to monitor their online behavior and then obtain legal permission to do so.
Given a choice between being monitored by their ISP or not, it seems unlikely that many Internet users – if they actually understand the proposition – will willingly have someone watch over their communications.
And surely, visitors to pirate sites – the obvious targets of the campaign – will reject the offer immediately, if the purpose of the offer is made to clear to them in the beginning. That calls into question the entire point of the campaign, which is to assess whether warnings on pirate sites will deter their use.
Fire Anime is a 100% free application that gives you access to an unlimited amount of Anime! For all anime fans, this is the best you can get in order to stream and watch anime in original / dubbed versions!
Even though the Fire Anime app has been specifically designed for Android TV’s and FireTV Sticks it will also work on all Android devices like a typical Android TV Box. Needless to say that this application also works on any Android smartphone and tablet as well. The app is created by the developer XenTeckzX.
Fire Anime Features
This Application is Free and 100% Ad Free
Main Ui page is Regularly updated with the Latest anime
Added a Watch list to allow you to save anime
Added a search page that allows you to search anime
Added a multiple servers that you can use to stream anime
Added a view all anime page that allows you to find new anime to watch
Added an episode page that updates every time you finish an episode and tells you which episodes you have watched
Added the ability to use external players such as Mx Player, Vlc Player and any other player you have installed
You need at least Android version 5.0 or newer
You can also checkout the FireAnime application Reddit page for more and the latest information by clicking here.
But Think About Your Privacy!
But one thing to consider, when using Fire Anime, is your online privacy. So you should always use a VPNto protect your identity and security when streaming free videos online. Especially with an apk such this. So if you consider protecting your internet identity and demand high quality privacy, then protect your online presence with a trusted VPN service like IP Vanish or Private Internet Access. Both are paid services but guarantee your online anonymity without keeping logs or paid records!
Download Fire Anime APK
Get the latest version of Fire Anime simply by clicking the link below. In case you use an Android TV / FireTV Stick then you will need to sideload this app. Best way to do such thing is to download the app on a USB flash drive and then by using a File Explorer / File Manager application to install it on your device.
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Fire-Anime-01.jpg480823Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-08-06 18:55:182019-08-06 18:55:21Fire Anime Watch Any Anime On Android TV / FireStick / Android TV Box
Another day, another senseless mass shooting in the United States, claiming the lives of yet more innocent victims.
While the authorities attempt to sift through this catastrophe and work out what drives people to carry out such terrible acts, attention is being placed on how their messages of evil are spread. Somewhat inevitably, parts of the Internet are set to shoulder at least some of the blame.
Not at all unsurprisingly, service providers are usually reluctant to take any responsibility for the actions of their users or some cases, customers. However, in an announcement early this morning, CDN company Cloudflare said it would cease its work with 8chan, the “cesspool of hate” messaging board where it’s alleged the shooter shared his manifesto.
“8chan is among the more than 19 million Internet properties that use Cloudflare’s service. We just sent notice that we are terminating 8chan as a customer effective at midnight tonight Pacific Time,” CEO Matthew Prince wrote in a statement.
“The rationale is simple: they have proven themselves to be lawless and that lawlessness has caused multiple tragic deaths. Even if 8chan may not have violated the letter of the law in refusing to moderate their hate-filled community, they have created an environment that revels in violating its spirit.”
While other publications will quite rightly focus on the human aspect of this weekend’s awful events, our reporting of issues affecting Cloudflare always center on the company’s involvement in copyright infringement actions. And there are several, almost every month.
Cloudflare is not a copyright infringer and always acts within the law but if 8chan is guilty of violating “the spirit” of the law and ripe for termination, it will be no surprise that copyright-focused groups will now be quietly rubbing their hands in anticipation.
The Pirate Bay, perhaps the most high-profile ‘pirate’ customer of Cloudflare, provides the most obvious example of a site with a stated aim of violating the law – copyright law, to be specific.
Yet to date nothing has been done to prevent the site from being a Cloudflare customer, because from Cloudflare’s side – perhaps counterintuitively – the CDN service itself hasn’t broken any laws. A similar argument can be made for the many hundreds or even thousands of comparable ‘pirate’ platforms which use Cloudflare in the same way.
It would be distasteful to compare the events of this past weekend with the sharing of movies, TV shows, and music, but copyright holders have had no problem using that as leverage in the past.
In a case brought against Cloudflare by ALS Scan, the adult publisher reminded the court that Cloudflare had previously terminated its business dealings with the Daily Stormer but hadn’t terminated its pirate site customers. Cloudflare didn’t want that discussion to take place at trial but its arguments were rejected by the judge.
In the end, Cloudflare and ALS Scan agreed to settle their case, meaning that a claim for contributory copyright infringement – through the prism of the Daily Stormer disconnection – didn’t get placed in front of a jury. But here we are, a little over a year later, with 8chan also having been terminated by Cloudflare under broadly similar circumstances.
In his message this morning, CEO Matthew Prince highlighted the fact that Cloudflare realizes that having policies that are more conservative than those of their customers would undermine customers’ abilities to run their ships as they see fit. This, the CEO says, means that the company sometimes has to bite its tongue – up to a point.
“We reluctantly tolerate content that we find reprehensible, but we draw the line at platforms that have demonstrated they directly inspire tragic events and are lawless by design. 8chan has crossed that line. It will therefore no longer be allowed to use our services,” Prince added.
Copyright holders regularly argue that pirate sites are “lawless” by their very nature but none have ever caused or inspired the kind of tragic events inflicted upon innocents in recent times.
All that being said, Cloudflare’s decision to terminate a site it states may have only violated “the spirit” of the law will eventually come back to haunt it, even if it was absolutely right to do so. No brand wants to be associated with those reveling in murder, but the clock is already ticking to see which copyright holder brings it up first, to support a case against Cloudflare and its customers.
Earlier this month, the US Department of Commerce requested input from the public on several piracy-related matters.
Specifically, it wanted to know more about counterfeit and pirated goods that pass through online third-party marketplaces, and how this can be curbed.
Responding to this request, industry groups MPAA, IFTA, CreativeFuture, and SAG-AFTRA bundled their views on the matter in a joint submission. The groups, which represent various parts of the movie industry, make it clear that piracy remains a major issue.
The groups explain that piracy is complex and multi-faceted. One trend they have signaled over the years is that, similar to the legal offering, piracy is more often streaming related nowadays. In some cases, users don’t even know that they are using pirate services.
“The piracy services often have the look and feel of legitimacy, sometimes luring viewers who have no intent to patronize pirate operations and may not even realize they are doing so. And just as legitimate online dissemination of movie and television programming is moving toward streaming, so, too, is piracy,” the groups write.
Pirate streaming services exist in different shapes, ranging from free pirate sites to paid IPTV subscriptions. The latter is seen as an emerging threat. The groups note that it’s often easier to use than other forms of piracy. As such, there has been an increase in demand for pirate IPTV services recently.
“The MPAA has identified more than 1,000 illegal IPTV services operating around the world. They are accessible via dedicated web portals; third-party applications; and piracy devices configured to access the services as well as individual pieces of pirated content on demand. Such devices recently experienced a surge in consumer adoption,” the submission reads.
In addition to IPTV streaming, other forms of copyright infringement remain a problem as well. This includes torrent sites, cyberlockers, linking sites, as well as streaming devices and applications.
The groups hope that with proper support from the Government, it will be easier to counter these threats. In terms of concrete suggestions, they state that the US Department of Commerce can provide assistance on four fronts, starting with the encouragement of voluntary initiatives.
Encourage Best Practices
For several years industry groups have been pushing for voluntary anti-piracy agreements with the third-party intermediaries. Some success has been booked on this front already.
For example, many advertising networks are now banning pirate sites. Similarly, marketplaces such as Alibaba, eBay, and Amazon, are actively working with rightsholders to stop copyright infringements, and payment processors such as PayPal, Visa, and Mastercard are more vigilant as well.
However, not all companies are as cooperative. That’s where the Department of Commerce could lend a hand, by actively encouraging anti-piracy best practices and other forms of cooperation.
Examples of areas where improvement can be made are domain name registrars and reverse proxies, such as Cloudflare. These companies could implement “repeat infringer” policies, the groups state. In addition, some hosting companies could also do more to ban pirate sites and services.
“Given the central role of hosting providers in the online ecosystem, it is disconcerting that many refuse to take action when notified that their hosting services are being used in clear violation of their own terms of service prohibiting intellectual property infringement, and in blatant violation of the law,” the groups write.
Criminal Enforcement
The second area where the US Government could help is more direct. As highlighted a few weeks ago, the MPAA has made several referrals to the Department of Justice (DoJ), calling out pirate streaming operations that could be criminally prosecuted.
The Department of Commerce could spur on law enforcement to take up these cases.
“The creative community has pending a number of criminal referrals to DOJ regarding streaming piracy operations, with the goal of replicating the deterrent effect and protection of legitimate consumption that happened after the Megaupload action,” the groups write.
“Our hope is that the Commerce Department and others in the Administration will encourage the DOJ to take such action,” they add.
Help to Restore WHOIS data
The third area where the copyright industry groups request help is also familiar. It relates to the European privacy regulation GDPR, which requires many online services and tools to tighten their privacy policies. This also affects domain registrars.
Ever since this was implemented, domain registrar oversight body ICANN decided to shield names and other personal information of domain name owners from public view. The MPAA and other outfits don’t like this, as it makes it harder for them to track down site owners.
They, therefore, want to restore access to the full WHOIS details again. While ICANN promised progress on this front, the issue still hasn’t been resolved. To counter this, US Congress may have to step up and pass legislation to reach the desired effect, and the Commerce Department could back this.
“Should ICANN’s efforts drag on without resolution in sight, we ask that the Department of Commerce support such legislation,” the groups write.
In addition, broad WHOIS access requirements could also be made a requirement in trade agreements, the groups add.
“The Administration should also seek robust WHOIS access requirements in future trade agreements, perhaps expanding on language included in the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement to apply to more than just a nation’s country-code top-level domain.”
Trade Agreements
Trade agreements are also a separate area of interest. The copyright industry groups point out that the piracy ecosystem is complex. It involves a wide range of players and intermediaries, many of which are located outside the United States.
The groups would like the US government to promote international cooperation in the fight against piracy. In addition, it should update its enforcement model to focus more on the potential liability of third-party intermediaries.
“While much of the model is sound—focusing on core aspects of copyright law and enforcement—the Administration should redouble its efforts around internet enforcement tools, including the critical concept of secondary liability, which creates a threat of liability for internet intermediaries that facilitate or profit from piracy,” the groups note.
In other words, the groups would like to see more trade agreements where companies such as domain registrars, search engines, ISPs, hosting outfits, and other players in the piracy ecosystem, can be held liable under certain circumstances.
—–
All in all, its a pretty elaborate wishlist the MPAA, IFTA, CreativeFuture, and SAG-AFTRA have submitted to the Department of Commerce. The department will take this, as well as the recommendations from other stakeholders, under review.
These submissions will form the basis for a Presidential memorandum on counterfeit and pirated goods trafficking through online marketplaces and internet intermediaries, which will be released in due course.
—
A copy of the full submission from the MPAA, IFTA, CreativeFuture, and SAG-AFTRA is available here (pdf).
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/skullsfeat.jpg2501200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-08-06 01:52:472019-08-06 01:52:47Industry Groups Share Anti-Piracy Wish List With US Government
The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are Web-DL/Webrip/HDRip/BDrip/DVDrip unless stated otherwise.
RSS feed for the articles of the recent weekly movie download charts.
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/worldfea.jpg2501200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-08-05 15:51:472019-08-05 15:51:47Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week on BitTorrent – 08/05/19
In March several major music companies sued Charter Communications, one of the largest Internet providers in the US with 22 million subscribers.
Helped by the RIAA, Capitol Records, Warner Bros, Sony Music, and others accused Charter of deliberately turning a blind eye to its pirating subscribers.
Among other things, they argued that the ISP failed to terminate or otherwise take meaningful action against the accounts of repeat infringers, even though it was well aware of them.
The labels sued the ISP for two types of secondary liability for copyright infringement; contributory infringement and vicarious liability. While Charter is confident that both claims will ultimately fail, it asked the Court to dismiss the latter claim before trial.
The music companies previously claimed that Charter is vicariously liable. To prove this, the rightsholders must show that allegedly-infringing material serves as a “draw” to subscribe to Charter’s Internet service. In addition, they must show that Charter can control the infringing activity.
According to the labels, this is the case. Among other things, they argued that Charter’s adverts for “high speed” downloads were seen as a draw. In addition, the ISP could control piracy on its network, by terminating repeat infringers.
In a response submitted this week, Charter counters these arguments.
With regard to the supposed “draw,” the ISP states that there has to be a causal connection between the financial benefit and the infringing activity. According to Charter, there is no plausible claim that suggests that subscribers specifically picked the company to carry out their piracy activities.
The fact that Charter advertises high-speed Internet is irrelevant in this case, as that’s what pretty much every ISP does. On top of that, high-speed Internet is also beneficial to all sorts of legal activity.
“It can safely be presumed that most, if not all, ISPs market the speed of their service, and there is of course nothing nefarious about doing so, as it is required for all manner of online activities. Plaintiffs can point to nothing to suggest that Charter’s ads are specifically targeted at would be infringers,” Charter writes.
“Moreover, Plaintiffs do not allege that the advertised speeds are meaningfully faster than Charter’s competitors or that those faster speeds somehow drew subscribers to Charter’s service (over others) to infringe. If Plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficient, every ISP would face exposure for merely advertising the speed of its internet service.”
In addition to refuting the “draw” claims, Charter also stresses that, even if it wanted to, it can’t control the infringing activities of its users.
The labels previously argued that the ISP does have control, as it can terminate the accounts of repeat infringers, but Charter stresses once again that this doesn’t stop piracy.
“The technology that allegedly facilitates the transfer of infringing material is BitTorrent and other P2P file sharing protocols. Charter cannot control BitTorrent or other P2P technology, nor do Plaintiffs allege as much. Terminating a user’s internet service does not preclude that user from continuing to use BitTorrent or other P2P websites.
“Rather than target the allegedly infringing P2P platforms themselves, Plaintiffs instead attempt to support a highly attenuated theory of liability,” Charter adds.
It is clear that both parties have a completely different view on the matter of piracy liability. It is now up to the Colorado District Court to decide which side makes the most sense.
—
A copy of Charter’s reply in support of its motion to dismiss plaintiffs claim for vicarious liability is available here (pdf).
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/radar-screen-display-feat.png2501200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-08-05 05:51:072019-08-05 05:51:07Charter: Fast Internet Speeds are Not Just for Pirates
When Megaupload was shut down in 2012, chaos ensued in the international file-hosting scene.
While Megaupload undoubtedly stored a lot of copyright-infringing content, it also cooperated with rightsholders and executed takedown demands, not unlike YouTube, for example.
Fearing the same fate, some sites shut down. Others, like fellow file-hosting sites Uploaded and Turbobit, reacted by preventing visitors from the United States from accessing their sites, at least temporarily. While both sites are still around today more than seven years later, the latter is now getting some attention from the RIAA, one of the plaintiffs in the currently-frozen Megaupload civil case.
On July 26, the RIAA filed for and obtained a DMCA subpoena which compels US CDN company Cloudflare to hand over the personal details of Turbobits’ operator, including names, physical addresses, IP addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, payment information, and account histories.
Turbobit stands accused of offering for distribution the album ‘Hurts 2B Human’ by American singer Pink. Another site listed in the subpoena, Hotsahiphop.org, is similarly accused of offering Mike Posner’s ‘Look What I’ve Become ft. Ty Dolla $ign’ without authorization.
However, it’s two fairly anonymous URLs listed in the same subpoena that offer a coincidental loop-around to the earlier Megaupload case of 2012.
321hiphop.is and gotth.is (Got This) are two pretty low-traffic sites that appear to be used as hosting platforms for various tracks and mixtapes. Since there are much bigger targets around today, it isn’t clear why they’re on the RIAA’s radar.
Nevertheless, the RIAA wants Cloudflare to hand over the personal details of their operators for the offense of hosting two copies of the 2010 Jay-Z track ‘Ultra’ which features none other than Swizz Beatz, the man Megaupload claimed was their CEO at the time of the raid in 2012.
Source: Megaupload (January 2012)
It’s unclear why Swizz Beatz was listed as the company’s CEO all of those years ago since the artist was never mentioned by name in any of the legal documentation connected to the raids or subsequent lawsuits. It was later confirmed by Ira Rothken, counsel for Megaupload, that Beatz was in negotiations to become the CEO, but it never came to pass.
However, Beatz did admit to working with Megaupload, possibly in connection with Megabox, the service that planned to give fans free music in return for their advertising clicks while giving most of the money back to the artists.
Megabox never came to light and here we are, seven years later, with the RIAA trying to tackle sites, not unlike Megaupload, with similar strategies, in order to protect his music.
The more things change, the more they stay the same, it seems.
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/feamusic.png2501200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-08-04 19:49:472019-08-04 19:49:47RIAA Asks Cloudflare to Unmask Owner of Turbobit
uTorrent for Windows first came out in September 2005. Soon after, it became the most widely used torrent client, which it still is today.
Initially, Apple users were left out, but after three years BitTorrent Inc. released their long-awaited version for Mac OS.
While official numbers are not available, uTorrent likely never gained the impressive market share it enjoyed on Windows. This is, in part, was due to the fact that there were already several established Mac torrent clients around, including Transmission and Vuze.
In recent years there’s been very little progress on the Mac development front. The last client update dates back to last year, and there is virtually no discussion going on in the official Mac forums. It was also excluded from the recent BitTorrent Speed release, which is Windows only.
That said, something big is expected next month. BitTorrent Inc. just announced that the desktop versions of uTorrent and BitTorrent Mainline won’t be available on the new Mac OS Catalina (version 10.15 and up). Instead, all users will be updated to the browser-based web clients.
The reason for this is fairly simple. uTorrent Mac is only available as a 32-bit application, while Apple’s upcoming release of Mac OS Catalina is only compatible with 64-bit apps.
“Therefore, in early September, we will automatically update µTorrent Classic for Mac to our newest torrent downloader and player, µTorrent Web for Mac. This is necessary to ensure that our torrent downloading software continues to work seamlessly with Catalina when millions of users update to the new version,” BitTorrent Inc announces.
“We will start updating users in early September. If you are using µTorrent Classic for Mac version 1.87 or earlier version, you will automatically get upgraded to µTorrent Web for Mac.”
It’s no surprise that support for 32-bit applications will end on the newer Mac OS. This has been known for a while and, for this reason, a 64-bit version of uTorrent was put on the feature request list last year. However, that request didn’t receive an official response.
As a result, all users of the new Mac OS Catalina will have to move their torrenting activity to the browser, or find an alternative client. Users who haven’t updated Mac OS to Catalina can continue to use the desktop version
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/fea-stop.jpg2501200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-08-03 23:47:532019-08-03 23:47:53uTorrent Desktop Client Will Stop Working on New Mac OS
Mindgeek owns some of the most popular porn brands on the Internet. ‘Tube’ sites Pornhub, RedTube, and YouPorn are all company-owned, as are adult production companies Brazzers and Digital Playground, to name just two.
One of its subsidiaries, MG Premium Ltd, operates the latter two brands and many more like them. As content producers, they also get involved in sending takedown requests to Google. In fact, MG Premium is one of the most prolific senders of DMCA notices on the Internet today, after sending notices targeting more than 215 million URLs on Google search alone.
MG Premium – currently the 5th most active sender of notices to Google
Despite all the takedowns targeting various domains, MG Premium appears particularly interested in the activities of several adult-focused ‘tube’ sites.
Via applications filed in a federal court in Washington last week, the company says it is attempting to obtain the identities of people who illegally uploaded its content to Waxtube.com, Vivud.com, Veporns.com, Tubezx.com, Siska.tv, Redwap.me, and Pornbraze.com. It says it can do this by issuing a subpoena to Cloudflare, which all of the sites use.
“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’s website, Waxtube.com,” the subpoenas read, substituting the site name at the end as appropriate.
“Such infringements have been ongoing and MG has issued DMCA notifications to Clouflare’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.”
The list and descriptions of allegedly-infringing URLs on Waxtube (which are detailed at the rate of roughly five per page in Waxtube’s case) run to six pages. The second site, Vivud.com, is backed up with more than 580 pages of URLs, with Tubezx.com and Redwap.com weighing in at close to 400 pages and 190 respectively.
The existence of the subpoenas raises a number of questions, not least how useful Cloudflare can be in these cases. The subpoenas specifically state that MG Premium wants to “identify alleged infringers who, without authorization from MG, posted material to..” the sites in question.
It’s not clear whether Cloudflare will be in a position to do that but it should be able to provide the details of the operators of the various sites, which may or may not provide a useful stepping stone for MG Premium to achieve its stated aim. Whether the adult company has further but as yet unstated plans will remain to be seen.
All of the Waxtube subpoena documents can be found here 1,2,3,4 (pdf)
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/court1-featured.jpg00Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-08-03 13:46:482019-08-03 13:46:48Mindgeek Asks Cloudflare to Unmask Tube Site Uploaders
Every year so-called copyright trolls sue thousands of BitTorrent users in the US. While most cases don’t make the news, every now and then one stands out.
This is true for the lawsuit adult content producer ‘Strike 3 Holdings’ filed against a John Doe, known by the IP-address 73.225.38.130, two years ago.
Strike 3 is the most active copyright litigant in the US at the moment. While the company has managed to obtain many settlements against accused pirates, this case was different. The defendant, a retired police officer in his 70s, decided to fight back.
The defendant submitted a counterclaim accusing Strike 3 of abuse of process and “extortion through sham litigation.” The man accused the rightsholder of going on a “fishing expedition,” while knowing that it couldn’t link the subscriber of the IP-address to any specific infringement.
While this counterclaim was denied by the Court, Strike 3 previously said that it was willing to declare that the defendant didn’t infringe its works. As such, the Court encouraged both parties to file a proposed judgment, which would also cover what costs and fees the copyright holder must pay, if any.
Over the past weeks, the parties tried to reach an agreement, but they failed to do so. As a result, this week the accused pirate submitted a motion for summary judgment to set in stone that he’s not a copyright infringer and to have his costs compensated.
The defendant’s attorney, J. Curtis Edmondson, notes that this case made his client potentially liable for an astronomical figure of $13,050,000.00, the maximum statutory damages for the 87 works his client supposedly shared.
However, the attorney points out that there is no evidence that this is the case. On the contrary, the defense argued that the tracking software used by Strike 3 is clearly flawed, as an expert report shows.
“This is the first case that has investigated the technical underpinnings of Strike 3’s dubious claims of infringement that have been replicated nationwide,” Edmondson writes.
“Strike 3 may have an interest in protecting its copyrights, but that interest should be counterweighed against the high false positive rate and the fact the software used to detect the infringements is not ‘forensic software’,” the attorney adds.
Apparently, one of Strike 3’s own experts, Patrick Paige, stated in a deposition that Strike 3 has no actual knowledge that the evidence tracking software (IPP) ‘works’. On top of that, an expert who analyzed the hard drive of the defendant found no evidence that any of the pirated files were stored on his computer.
Based on this, and various other arguments, the defendant asks the Court to grant summary judgment, confirming that he didn’t infringe any copyrights. In addition, the retired police officer asks the Court to award attorney fees and costs, totaling $48,773.13.
In summary, the defendant’s attorney equates the current case to the controversial dealings of Elizabeth Holmes and her now-defunct company Theranos. The young entrepreneur, a Stanford dropout, was lauded as the next Steve Jobs for inventing a revolutionary blood testing machine.
However, after several years of convincing many Silicon Valley investors, as well as the public at large, it turned out that there was no evidence that her machines actually worked.
“This is the first case where a ‘John Doe’ has had to expose the Potemkin village known as the ‘IPP Software.’. Like Theranos, there has been no independent validation studies and no evidence that the IPP Software is ‘forensic software’,” Edmondson writes.
The case is now back in the hands of the Court which will determine whether the defendant is indeed entitled to summary judgment and the requested compensation.
—
A copy of the motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of copyrights and award attorney fees and costs is available here (pdf).
This week we have one newcomer in our chart.
