For more than a decade, alleged file-sharers around the world have been pressured to pay significant settlement fees.

These so-called ‘copyright-trolling’ efforts are pretty straightforward. Copyright holders obtain a list of ‘pirating’ IP-addresses and then request a subpoena from the court, compelling ISPs to hand over the associated customer data.

This scheme can be rather lucrative. With minimal effort, rightsholders can obtain hundreds or thousands of dollars per defendant. These cases generally don’t go to trial. On the contrary, the copyright holders often drop cases when a defendant pushes back.

This was also the case when Bodyguard Productions, known for The Hitman’s Bodyguard, sued Ernesto Mendoza. The defendant, who is in his 70s and suffering from end-stage renal disease, denied that he downloaded the film and fought back. 

The alleged pirate turned the tables with a list of counterclaims, accusing the rightsholder of running a “business model that cannot and should not be authorized by the courts.”

These type of lawsuits equate to a “sue then settle” or “cut and run,” scheme that is meant to “intimidate defendants into paying them money out of fear,” the defense argued.

In response, Bodyguard Productions appeared to “run,” as it swiftly filed for voluntary dismissal. However, Mendoza and his lawyer didn’t want to let the case go without being compensated for the legal fees they had already incurred.

This presented the court with an unusual situation where the accusing party wants to drop its case, but the defendant wants to continue. After hearing both sides, Illinois District Court Judge Robert Dow decided to dismiss the case, ordering both parties to pay their own fees.

This was a huge disappointment for the alleged file-sharer, who now has to bear the costs for a case that he isn’t allowed to fight. According to his attorney Lisa Clay, the Court should ensure that plaintiffs are ready and willing to prove their case.

“Unfortunately, the Court’s recent order does not,” Clay tells TorrentFreak.

“Granting the Plaintiff’s disingenuous motion to dismiss without penalty has the real consequence of strengthening the troll business model.

“The Order deprived Mr. Mendoza of the opportunity to prove his innocence and expose the Plaintiff’s extortion enterprise. What is worse, the Court’s denial of Mr. Mendoza’s request for reimbursement of costs and attorneys’ fees all but guarantees the continued success of the troll model.”

On a broader scale, there’s a positive note for future defendants. In the order, Judge Dow notes that the Court should re-evaluate how it handles these cases. In addition, the potential for abuse may also deserve the attention of the Rules Committee.

“[T]he points advanced by Defendant about the potential for abuse across the universe of peer-to-peer copyright infringement cases convince the Court that it should re-evaluate its own overall treatment of these cases and consider whether to suggest that the Rules Committee in this district look into the matter as well,” Judge Dow writes.

The order notes that special rules are already available in Oregon, where the number of defendants is limited to one per case, and where ISP subpoenas should alert potential defendants to the availability of pro-bono attorneys.

This is a significant statement for a Court that has generally been very ‘friendly’ towards rightsholders in these type of file-sharing lawsuits. That said, the defense isn’t celebrating.

While Clay would like to take solace in this statement, she and her client are still left with nothing. And there are no guarantees that anything will change.

“Promises of this nature do not compensate my client for the time and expense we were both forced to incur to defend a baseless lawsuit. Sadly, the Court’s ruling all-but ensures that even if such changes are implemented, there will be no pro bono attorneys left to handle this work.

“Knowing that I have no hope of being reimbursed my fees will make it that much more challenging for me (and others) to find the time and resources to do this growingly thankless work,” Clay adds.

But while the case has been dismissed, it may not be the end of the road quite yet. Mr. Mendoza’s attorney says that a motion for reconsideration is still an option. That would provide the Court with an ideal situation to re-evaluate its position.

—

A copy of Judge Dow’s order is available here (pdf).

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

Source link

Similar to other sites that rely on user-generated content, Facebook has to battle a constant stream of unauthorized copyright material.

When it comes to targeting infringement, Facebook has rolled out a few anti-piracy initiatives in recent years. The company has a “Rights Manager” tool that detects infringing material automatically. In addition, it also processes some takedown requests manually.

Not all of these notices result in a takedown. For a variety of reasons, Facebook may choose not to intervene. In Italy, this resulted in a drawn-out legal battle which has now come to a conclusion at the Court of Rome.

The case in question was filed by Mediaset, the media conglomerate founded by former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. Mediaset noticed that links to copyrighted clips of the cartoon “Kirarin Revolution” were posted on Facebook.

The actual content was hosted by YouTube, but Mediaset’s legal team went after Facebook instead. It asked the social network to remove the postings of a particular Facebook group, which were shared with derogatory comments about the people involved in the show.

This week the Court of Rome ruled that Facebook is indeed liable for failing to remove the copyright-infringing hyperlinks. The company was ordered to pay €9,000 in damages as a result. As Facebook is also held liable for defamation, the total damages add up to €35,000.

While the damages amount is not groundbreaking, for Mediaset this was a matter of principle.

TorrentFreak spoke to Mediaset lawyer Alessandro La Rosa, who handled the case together with colleagues at the Previti law firm. The Court of Rome’s order shows intermediaries such as Facebook can be held liable when they fail to respond in copyright infringement allegations.

“Despite Facebook’s role as a passive hosting provider, in this case, it’s obliged to take down and prevent access to illicit information uploaded on its website. The provider is expected to carry out its economic activity with the due diligence that’s reasonably expected to identify and prevent the reported illegal activities,” Mr. La Rosa tells us.

Mediaset sent the first notice regarding the infringing activity in 2010, but Facebook decided not to take any action at the time. Although the offensive group was identified, the takedown requests didn’t include a link to the infringing content, Facebook argued.

The Court considered this defense but concluded that a link to the infringing hyperlink isn’t necessary. Facebook was alerted to the group and the alleged activities and could have taken action based on this information.

“According to the Court, the identification of URL is only technical data which doesn’t coincide with the individual harmful content present on the platform, but only indicates the ‘place’ where this content is found and, therefore, isn’t an indispensable prerequisite for its identification,” Mr. La Rosa says.

It’s worth noting that Mediaset never attempted to remove the actual infringing clip from YouTube. Mediaset mostly wanted Facebook to deal with the Facebook group which posted the infringing material in a defamatory context.

Mediaset is happy with the outcome according to its legal team. Since the verdict is partly based on EU law, Mr. La Rosa believes that it will help other rightsholders to make a case against Facebook and similar platforms going forward.

Facebook is currently considering whether to file an appeal. The company can easily pay the damages, but it may be worried about the broader implications of the ruling.

“We are examining the decision of the Court of Rome,” a Facebook spokesperson told Adnkronos in response, adding that it takes the protection of copyright holders “very seriously”.

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

Last week, several major Hollywood studios, Amazon, and Netflix filed a lawsuit against Omniverse One World Television.

Under the flag of anti-piracy group ACE, the companies accused Omniverse and its owner Jason DeMeo of supplying of pirate streaming channels to various IPTV services.

Omniverse doesn’t offer any streaming boxes but sells live-streaming services to third-party distributors, such as Dragon Box, HDHomerun, Flixon TV, and SkyStream TV, which in turn offer live TV streaming packages to customers.

According to ACE, Omniverse offered these channels without permission from its members. As such, the company is now branded as a pirate streaming TV supplier.

Omniverse initially didn’t respond but in a statement sent to TorrentFreak a few hours ago, the company states that, even though it doesn’t agree with the allegations, it supports ACE’s anti-piracy efforts.

“While Omniverse disagrees with the substance and the specifics of the allegations made against the company in a recent California court filing, we are highly supportive of the mission that the plaintiffs and their partners in the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) are carrying out,” the company says.

With a lawsuit from some of the most powerful entertainment industry companies hanging over its head, Omniverse says that it intends to quickly and constructively resolve the concerns of the ACE members.

“It is our belief that when this process is complete, that both sides will be satisfied with the outcome,” the company notes.

In its statement, Omniverse further suggests that there may be some misunderstanding, stating that the company is also a victim of “unlicensed” distribution.

“Omniverse believes there is no place in the industry for media pirates and, consistent with the plaintiffs, believes their legitimate business has been harmed by the unlicensed distribution of media content,” the company writes.

Although Omniverse is the legal target, many other companies are directly affected by the lawsuit. This includes Silicondust, which operates the HDHomeRun Premium service.

Theodore Head, President of SiliconDust, told Cord Cutters News that it’s aware of this risk and that it is trying to find a way to cope with the potential fallout for its customers.

“SiliconDust is not a party of the lawsuit, but we can be indirectly affected by Omniverse not able to continue their service and so we are in the process of finding out a way to best mitigate any potential interruptions to our service and will let our customers know as soon as we know if there will be any change to the current services,” Head said.

Omniverse itself will also try to address the matter and prevent any major disruptions, but it’s unknown whether it can continue with the same channels.

According to ACE, several channels were offered without permission from rightsholders, so that’s one of the key issues to be resolved. The finer details of the allegations and Omniverse’s response will likely become apparent as the case progresses.

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

Downloading and sharing copyrighted content without permission is illegal everywhere in the EU.

It doesn’t matter whether users obtain infringing content via BitTorrent sites, web streaming services, or their favorite Kodi addon, doing so is potentially actionable under existing law.

A minority of users discover this the hard way (particularly in countries like Germany and Sweden) when they receive a demand for cash from copyright trolls who track their activities when using BitTorrent.

In reality, however, most small-time pirates are able to carry on with their activities relatively unhindered, since the mainstream movie and music companies rarely chase down individuals for settlement or prosecution.

But that doesn’t mean they’re not watching and that some people can suffer serious consequences.

Back in 2017, a UK student made international headlines after she downloaded and shared the movie Chicken Run using BitTorrent. What was unusual about this case is that she did so using her university’s WiFi, which was monitored by an anti-piracy company working for the film’s owners.

What followed was a 20-day ban from Eduroam (education roaming), a worldwide roaming access service developed for the international research and education community.

Eduroam allows students and staff to access the Internet across campus and other participating sites, unless they’re currently under a suspension for piracy, of course. And, it transpires, that is more common than one might think.

According to The Tab Network, which describes itself as a “guerilla army of bold and subversive student reporters across the country”, a staggering 93 students at the University of Sheffield in the UK were banned from the Eduraom network between 2017 and 2018 following copyright complaints.

The surprising statistic was obtained following a Freedom of Information request. The details suggest that those downloading movies and TV shows are most at risk of being tracked by anti-piracy companies. While dozens of titles are listed, the most complained about content is listed as follows:

• Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (6)
• Rick and Morty (5)
• Ghost in the Shell (4)
• IT (4)
• South Park (4)
• The Accountant (3)

While most of the titles in the full list appear new or relatively so, it’s clear that entertainment industry groups are monitoring films from decades ago.

The Naked Gun 2 (1991) is one such example but complaints were also received for The Godfather (1972) and The Godfather Part II (1974), despite both movies moving dangerously close to half a century old.

As the full list indicates, TV shows were also complained about regularly, with Rick and Morty and South Park unsurprisingly proving popular with students. Various episodes of MTV’s reality show Geordie Shore featured in a number of complaints too, as did Impractical Jokers.

That downloading and sharing highbrow material such as Geordie Shaw has resulted in an Internet ban for many Sheffield University students must come as a disappointment to those involved, but they can’t claim they weren’t warned.

While the University does allow the use of peer-to-peer software such as BitTorrent, it does not permit the sharing of copyrighted content and appears to have a robust process in place to deal with allegations.

“University computing facilities (including any University provided connection to the Internet) must not be used to copy or distribute copyright material without authorization of the copyright owner. This includes movies, music, software and electronic books,” the facility’s copyright policy states.

“The use of University facilities in breach of copyright law is a serious matter, which can damage the good name of the University and is against University Regulations and English Law.

“Material that is proven to infringe the law or is in breach of University policy will be removed. Users found to be in breach of this policy may have their accounts temporarily or permanently suspended and/or face disciplinary action,” it adds.

While the anti-piracy companies monitoring these movies and TV shows are happy to catch any infringer in their dragnets, there can be little doubt that they absolutely know that in these cases they are targeting students.

It’s up for debate whether having an education disrupted is an appropriate and proportionate response to small-time infringements but given that this type of peer-to-peer piracy has been chased down for almost two decades, students really can’t complain that they don’t know the risks.

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 entertainment industries regularly warn the public at large that pirate sites are riddled with malware and viruses, posing a threat to unwitting visitors.

While these comments are partly made out of self-interest, they’re not entirely overblown. There are indeed plenty of scammers who upload nasty content that is added to, or disguised as, popular files.

This is nothing new and generally speaking, these files are easy to spot and swiftly removed from well-moderated sites. However, in a recent case, this wasn’t as apparent, since it involved a well-known uploader that had a “trusted’ status on some sites.

The uploader in question is Cracksnow, who shared tens of thousands of cracked software titles in recent years. A dedicated group of followers watched these torrents and “Cracksnow” was previously listed as one of the most searched for terms on torrent sites.

In recent months, however, numerous reports claimed that these popular releases contained malware, or even ransomware, which can do serious harm to one’s computer. 

Below is an example of a now-removed torrent on 1337x.to which reportedly included a copy of the GandCrab ransomware.

A few of these reports are nothing out of the ordinary. Anti-virus vendors sometimes flag cracks as malicious, without good reason, for example. Also, “rival” uploaders may try to discredit the competition with fake malware reports.

However, in the case of CracksNow, the complaints were plentiful, persistent, and not without consequence.

Earlier this month, the popular torrent site 1337x took action and banned the account. This is quite unusual since it was a “trusted” uploader, but a senior staffer informs TorrentFreak that the reports were warranted.

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