On paper, Nintendo’s lawsuit targeting the developers of Switch emulator Yuzu was solid. It also had the potential to drag on for a long time.

Without surprise banana peels suddenly making an appearance, on balance, Nintendo could’ve walked away with a fairly easy win. Yet just weeks after the lawsuit was filed, Nintendo and the anonymous Yuzu developers agreed to settle .

From the outside it was neat, tidy, and efficient. Perhaps even unusually so.

A judgment in favor of Nintendo, following a case heard on the merits, would’ve arguably served as a more valuable deterrent. Instead, Nintendo successfully protected its brand and eliminated all risk of not getting precisely what it needed to shut down similar operations in the future.

The resulting judgment and permanent injunction now serve as guidance tools; they detail specific actions relevant to emulation and why they represent illegality and red lines for Nintendo.

Nintendo Targets Suyu, Nuzu, Uzuy, Torzu, and Sudachi

As Nintendo continues to target Yuzu-like emulators that remain available online, takedown notices now feature detailed information about Yuzu to ensure compliance.

Nintendo’s general position is that since the software it wants to take down is based on the same code as Yuzu, the legal conclusions in the Yuzu matter should be applied here. For good measure, copies of the Yuzu judgment and the injunction that restrains its developers are supplied for reference.

A DMCA takedown notice sent to GitHub dated July 5, 2024, is a perfect example. An introductory paragraph details Nintendo’s deployment of technological protection measures (TPM). These ensure that the Nintendo Switch console only plays legitimate Nintendo video game files, while preventing users from unlawfully copying and playing Switch games on “unauthorized” devices, Nintendo explains.

The notice goes on to list 14 emulator repositories that contain or are based on Yuzu code. On that basis, Nintendo wants them taken down.

“The reported repositories offer and provide access to the yuzu emulator or code based on the yuzu emulator (specifically, programs called Suyu, Nuzu, Uzuy, Torzu, and Sudachi). The yuzu emulator is primarily designed to play Nintendo Switch games. Specifically, yuzu illegally circumvents Nintendo’s technological protection measures and runs illegal copies of Nintendo Switch games,” the notice reads.

The remainder of the notice covers previously established ground in respect of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA and how Yuzu was found to have violated those provisions. In summary, the approach was a complete success.

All Repos Unavailable, Two Different Reasons

At the time of writing, all 14 repositories are unavailable, for one of two possible reasons. The majority display a ‘page not found’ message which suggests that after receiving the takedown notice, some developers responded by deleting their own repositories.

The remaining six repos (1x Yuzo-type, 1x Torzu, 2x Suyo, 2x Uzuy) display a takedown advisory from GitHub, suggesting they either didn’t respond quickly enough or for some reason, did not respond to the notice at all.

While his repo has been deleted, one developer doesn’t see this as the end of the road.

Sudachi Will Be Completely Rewritten

In a post to X on July 5 , the developer of Sudachi acknowledged that his repo had been targeted by Nintendo. He also indicated that since his software provided “no illegal content” he would follow up with a counter notice.

In a subsequent post , circumvention entered the equation and from there, a later update on replacing some of Sudachi’s code with an open-source alternative.

Further chin-scratching in respect of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions and what they mean for emulators like Sudachi, may suggest that even the most brilliant of coding minds find this aspect of the DMCA somewhat impenetrable.

That’s hardly a surprise given that most people associate copyright law with the right to copy, rather than the circumvention of measures that “effectively control access” to copyright works, regardless of whether they’re effective or if anything was actually copied.

As mentioned earlier, the text in the judgment and injunction appear to be the new guard rails; those in the Switch emulator scene will find the space in the middle very, very narrow indeed.

Nintendo’s DMCA takedown notice is available here

Image credit: Stockcake

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

In 2015, Brazilian developer Matheus Valadares shared a new game called Agar.io on 4chan, which soon became a smash hit.

The game also popularized the IO extension for games, a reference to the input/output computing term, not the Indian Ocean territory from where it originally derived its initials.

These IO games are often quite basic but addictive and entertaining nonetheless. They’re typically available in app stores and also on the web, where they can be played in the browser. Belgium-based game website CrazyGames has more than 150 IO games listed, for example, but there are many more.

YoHoHo

YoHoHo.io is a popular ‘battle royale’ IO release. The pirate-themed kill-and-plunder game has many thousands of active players, through apps and via the website. Similar to other games of its type, it’s free to play, with the occasional advertisement.

The availability of YoHoHo is not limited to official sites and apps, though. There are various hobbyist game portals that offer the game as well, without permission from the rightsholders and typically minus the ads.

Several of these game sites are hosted though GitHub pages. While many players might appreciate the advertising-free gaming experience, not everyone fancies this unauthorized use.

Github Takedown Notice

Earlier this week, GitHub received a takedown notice from an unnamed sender, asking the developer platform to remove several ‘pirated’ versions of the pirate-themed game.

The takedown notice references an anti-circumvention claim, suggesting that the pirated versions disabled the JavaScript sitelock. This preventive measure typically prevents third-parties from loading the game though external sites.

The allegedly infringing games are part of larger game portals that are hosted through GitHub pages. While GitHub didn’t greenlight the anti-circumvention claim, it took the YoHoHo games offline based on other copyright claims.

“While GitHub did not find sufficient information to determine a valid anti-circumvention claim, we determined that this takedown notice contains other valid copyright claim(s),” GitHub writes.

This appears to be a fairly straightforward takedown, but the sender of the notice remains a mystery. TorrentFreak reached out to YoHoHo.io publisher Crazy Games, who informed us that they are not behind it.

Other potential claimants do seem to exist. ExodragonGames, for example, appears to be the creator of YoHoHo.io and several other IO games. The company didn’t immediately respond to our request for comment.

Shiver me Timbers!

It appears that several of the developers who shared the game on their own portals didn’t mean any harm. In response to the takedown, some websites disappeared completely and while others still offer games, they don’t intend to relaunch YoHoHo.

“I have removed anything remaining and related to YoHoHo.io on my site. I very much respect the author’s property rights and I apologize for this incident!” one developer told us.

A brief look at one of the remaining portals suggests that YoHoHo.io is indeed no longer featured, but many other games remain.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Those setting out to buy a pirate IPTV device, perhaps even for the first time, have broadly three options.

The first is to buy a ‘blank’ Android device from a retailer before navigating a minefield they don’t understand, hoping to buy a pirate subscription without getting ripped off.

A second and increasingly popular option is to buy a device with an embedded subscription, either from a friend, a friend-of-a-friend, or from those prepared to sell them via websites or openly on social media.

Shooting Fish in a Barrel

According to a lawsuit filed by DISH Network and Sling TV in May, targeting California residents Marcelino Padilla and Danny Contreras, Facebook was the sales platform of choice. Convenient for both sellers and buyers, platforms like Facebook are increasingly used for pirate IPTV sales. For DISH investigators, that could be seen as a positive.

The complaint alleged that Padilla and Conteras violated the companies’ rights under the DMCA by ‘trafficking’ in illicit streaming services which, at least in part, provided content illegally obtained from their legal streaming services.

The fact these devices were sold under Padilla’s real name, alongside photographs of large boxes containing set-top boxes ready for sale, seems unnecessarily risky in the current climate. But here we are.

Demonstrating large sales reduces sales longer term

It may not be everyone’s cup of tea to spend their evenings studying the intricacies of copyright law, but Omi in a Hellcat’s fate could hardly be described as inaccessible.

Growing Interest in Certain Devices

Lawsuits like this are certainly nothing new. DISH and Sling have been filing not dissimilar complaints for several years while demanding damages under the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.

More recently, however, there has been an uptick in lawsuits against individuals selling a particular type of set-top device. Their characteristics make them both easy to sell and attractive to buyers.

In its complaint, DISH focuses on the ‘services’ but in reality, those services are inseparable from the devices that customers physically buy.

“Defendants sell the Services for a one-time cost of approximately $350.00. Padilla’s Facebook posts emphasize that after the initial payment there are ‘no monthly fees’ (unlike legitimate pay-television services such as the services provided by Plaintiffs that charge a monthly subscription fee),” DISH notes.

“Padilla’s advertising places an emphasis on converting users from legitimate subscription-based television services such as those provided by Plaintiffs, stating for example ‘no monthly fees’ and ‘Cut the cord forever’.”

One Upfront Outlay, No Monthly Subscription

The brands of the devices sold by the defendants – Tanggula, vSeeBox and SuperBox – have become increasingly well known over the past couple of years. The Facebook groups through which they were offered – Vsee, Super Box, Superbox Support & Sales, Superbox Support, and Tanggula TV Box – leave little to the imagination.

At $350 per unit, pricing is certainly steep when compared to other similarly-powered devices available on the market. However, there’s no requirement with these broadly similar set-top boxes to take out a separate IPTV subscription that needs to be renewed each month.

Buyers simply need to follow a few basic instructions (those below come from a reseller’s advertising) and their device is instantly activated with almost all content imaginable.

Please activate the Tanggula box before running TangTV first time. Go to the “TAStore” (Homepage–>APP–>TAStore) App, click “Activation” then click “Tang TV” and “Tars TV” to download. You can download Tang TV directly from the “TAStore” app without downloading through links. Including after factory reset, they can also download Tang TV directly in “TAStore”

Devices with similar functionality under different branding managed to cause a public scandal in Taiwan back in 2021. At a California court last Friday, the claimed 500 set-top boxes sold by Padilla theoretically cost him roughly 10 times their cost price in damages.

Final Judgment and Injunction

In a judgment dated July 5, 2024, the court found the defendants liable for violations of the DMCA’s section 1201(a)(2), for trafficking in illegal streaming services accessed via the vSeeBox and Tanggula set-top devices. Damages were calculated at $2,500 under section 1203(c)(3)(A) for each of the 500 services/devices sold by Padilla.

While no damages were applied to Danny Contreras, damages against Padilla amounted to a cool $1,250,000, at least on paper. The terms of the judgment and accompanying injunction were reached by agreement and while the plaintiffs will have few qualms about inflicting considerable pain, it’s possible that information will play some part in keeping payable damages down.

Meanwhile, the terms of the injunction strongly suggest that those looking for a pre-loaded set-top box in California will now have to look elsewhere. That provides a little food for thought.

Next Day Delivery?

The devices sold by Padilla are not especially rare or indeed anything particularly special. The built-in subscription sets them apart from the majority of devices on the market and that can be a big plus for some people.

That they can be easily purchased from Amazon in the United States, Canada, the UK, and most countries in Europe, may come as more of a surprise, however.

In light of Padilla’s $1.25m bill, these devices being sold on Amazon may seem a little jarring; one rule for them and another for everyone else, perhaps.

In reality, there are indeed different rules and here, various technical legal matters aside, everything can be boiled down to intent.

While the devices are simply being sold on Amazon, arguably they’re not illegal until the user activates the subscription package. If we compare that to the sales in California, the same might be true; at least if everything hadn’t been undermined by the not insignificant matter of the devices being deliberately and openly sold for infringing purposes.

Finally, the question of the subscription – is it really for a lifetime? It probably all depends on what ‘lifetime’ means and that part rarely gets clarified. In fact, a YouTuber recently revealed he was gifted similar devices in exchange for a review, but things didn’t go entirely to plan.

After encountering network activity that caused him alarm, his review wasn’t exactly glowing. As a thank you, the devices he was gifted were remotely disabled. A disappointing outcome but on the plus side, the network shenanigans stopped.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Earlier this month, torrent search engine MagnetDL mysteriously went offline, and there’s still no trace of the site today.

The site had previously gone offline after it faced copyright-related hosting challenges, which may have also played a role in its disappearance.

MagnetDL’s recent troubles were followed by the voluntary shutdown of pirate streaming site Animeflix a few days ago. While both sites operate in different niches and have nothing to do with each other, at some point they shared the same hosting company.

Hosting MagnetDL and Animeflix?

Data suggests that both sites have used the services of Hungarian hosting company ServerAstra . This may be a total coincidence, of course, but in our quest for additional information we contacted the company to see if it was able to provide insight into recent events.

As expected, ServerAstra refused to confirm or deny that it hosted MagnetDL or Animeflix. That’s an understandable response, as online services have to abide by strict privacy regulations in the EU. It also means that we don’t get to learn more about these two specific cases.

Luckily, however, ServerAstra was able to provide additional insight into how the EU Copyright Directive has changed the position of hosting providers in Europe. This directly affects alleged ‘pirate’ sites.

Historically, many hosting providers preferred not to get involved in copyright disputes. They often referred takedown notices to their clients, so the parties could resolve these matters directly. The approach was similar to that taken by prominent domain registrars and registries.

In recent years, many hosting providers have adopted more strict policies to ban trouble-causing pirate sites. Under the EU Copyright Directive adopted five years ago, this is now a requirement.

The EU Copyright Directive requires websites that publish ‘user-uploaded’ content to have a proper takedown policy, aimed at minimizing copyright infringement. If such a policy is not in place, complaints may be escalated to the upstream hosting provider.

Strict Rules Under the EU Copyright Directive

ServerAstra’s co-founder and CTO, Andrew Azarov, informs us that so-called pirate sites are not welcome at their company and that they abide by strict rules, largely dictated by the Copyright Directive.

“[Per the Copyright Directive] any website hosting content submitted by third parties must have a contact form, list an entity responsible for the website and react to abuse complaints directly within a very short (12 hours) time,” he explains.

“If there is no such information on the website or complaints are not responded to within a reasonable timeframe – the copyright owner or complainer with power of attorney may escalate to upstream hosting.

“Customers will be suspended and/or terminated in violation of copyright if they do not comply with demands of copyright holders,” ServerAstra’s CTO stresses.

Azarov notes that escalation could mean ServerAstra blocking an IP address or handing over the personal details of a customer to the complaining party. Put differently, copyright holders can obtain the personal details behind an infringing site without intervention from the courts or law enforcement.

Sharing Customer Info with Rightsholders

ServerAstra doesn’t happily share customer information with third-parties due to privacy concerns. However, the company learned the hard way that refusing to do so can lead to legal trouble and hefty fines.

In the past, the hosting provider would only share information in response to requests from the local police, or through the EUROPOL cooperation system, but under the EU Copyright Directive it will now respond directly to rightsholders or authorized representatives.

ServerAstra initially rejected requests for information, arguing that personal information was protected by its privacy policy and EU privacy law (GDPR). This resulted in a lawsuit at a court in Hamburg, Germany, which required the company to pay a hefty fine for its refusal to cooperate.

The hosting company is not in a position to share the details of this case, which remains private, but it means that it will hand over personal details of customers under the right conditions.

To keep costs low this process is largely automated, Azarov explains. While the company can’t share any individual details, it has already taken ten actions in response to ten copyright complaints during this month alone.

Pirate Site Troubles

Whether MagnetDL or Animeflix were subject to such an action is unknown. These sites are not typical user-generated content sites, as the operators managed and organized the content. However, both sites linked to content uploaded by third-parties.

Needless to say, when a website is clearly copyright infringing, we don’t expect any reputable host to challenge the definition of Online Content-Sharing Service Providers (OCSSP) under the EU Copyright Directive.

All in all, it’s safe to say that the hosting environment in Europe has become more challenging for pirate sites in recent years. While there will always be companies catering to these types of services, copyright holders have gained extra enforcement powers in Europe, which is precisely what the EU Copyright Directive aimed to achieve.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

On November 4, 2022, the United States Department of Justice and the FBI began seizing Z-Library’s domains as part of a major operation to shut down the infamous ‘shadow library’ platform.

A criminal investigation had identified two Russian nationals, Anton Napolsky and Valeriia Ermakova, as the alleged operators of the site. On October 21, 2022, at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Sanket J. Bulsara ordered their arrest. They were detained in Argentina on November 3, 2022.

After arriving at the Ambrosio Taravella International Airport, the unsuspecting couple cleared customs and hired a car from a popular rental company. The United States Embassy informed local authorities that the pair were subject to an Interpol Red Notice.

At what point the Russians’ phones were tapped is unclear but, under the authority of a Federal Court arrest warrant, Argentinian law enforcement began tracking the couple’s movements as they traveled south in their rented Toyota Corolla.

Using data submitted in support of a Chamber of Deputies (lower house of the Argentine Congress) inquiry and data made available elsewhere, we were able to recreate the route allegedly taken by Napolsky and Ermakova before their arrest.

Points of reference in the reports are widely spaced, so the exact route will likely differ from that shown (right) . What is clear, however, is that following a visit to El Calafate, the pair were arrested by airport security police as they arrived in Río Gallegos, Santa Cruz. They were later transferred to Córdoba.

Napolsky and Ermakova informed authorities they were on vacation in Argentina, enjoying the sights in a rented car. They’d done much the same in almost 100 countries previously, although without any serious issue.

In January 2023, Judge Miguel Hugo Vaca Narvaja authorized the Russians to be detained under house arrest. Approval from Córdoba prosecutor Maximiliano Hairabedian, who was responsible for the request to extradite Napolsky and Ermakova to the United States, was not obtained.

Pair Fight Extradition to the United States

With a federal indictment , alleging criminal copyright infringement, wire fraud, and money laundering offenses, waiting for them in the United States, the priority for Napolsky and Ermakova would soon be their fight against extradition.

According to a November 2022 statement made by the Russian embassy in Argentina, no official extradition request was received in the immediate wake of the pair’s arrest. The embassy noted that “Argentina does not allow automatic execution of extraterritorial decisions and requests from third states.” Yet even after the request arrived, the process was far from straightforward.

After retaining counsel , the pair denied all wrongdoing. With diplomats from the Russian embassy in attendance, counsel for Napolsky argued that the extradition request failed on the basics by not specifying which copyrighted works had allegedly been infringed, among other things.

That triggered a somewhat remarkable series of events.

Judge Requested Additional Detail From U.S. Authorities

Under pressure from the defense, Judge Sergio Pinto agreed to seek more information from U.S. authorities so that the defendants’ concerns about evidence could be addressed. However, the defense had other concerns too, including the impartiality of Judge Pinto, who had reportedly granted the United States a 30-day extension to correct defects in their extradition request.

According to local news publication La Voz , the extension led to the defense accusing Judge Pinto of bias towards the United States. The defense said that a judge’s job is to judge and here, by granting an extension to the requesting state after closing the trial, the defense had no opportunity to participate in the process and suffered a disadvantage.

Defendants’ counsel called for Judge Pinto’s recusal and the Judge defended his position. Having reviewed the case, Judge Abel Sánchez Torres sided with the Russians and Judge Pinto was removed.

New Judge Orders Extradition

After replacing Judge Pinto, Judge Sánchez Freytes presided over the second extradition hearing. Based on the charges – criminal copyright infringement, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering – the Judge said that extradition to the United States was appropriate.

With Napolsky and Ermakova still under house arrest in Córdoba, an appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice sought political refugee status for the Russians. Success would mean the Russians could not be extradited to the United States. Meanwhile, another Russian was also seeking refugee status, this time to avoid extradition to Russia.

Oleg Andreevich Kulakov is considered an opponent of the Kremlin. According to a La Voz report, at the hearing previously attended by diplomats from the Russian embassy, Napolsky and Ermakova mentioned that Kulakov, wanted for fraud in Russia, is a neighbor of theirs. A decision on Kulakov’s extradition awaits a decision from the National Refugee Commission; Napolsky and Ermakova, on the other hand, appear to have decided that the time for waiting was over.

Z-Library Defendants Vanish Into Thin Air

Patronato del Liberado (Patronage of the Liberated) is responsible for assisting people who have previously been detained by the authorities with family and social reintegration. It’s also tasked with monitoring compliance of those on probation or subject to house arrest.

According to unnamed ‘judicial sources’ cited by La Voz, which receives full credit for a remarkable scoop , when the group conducted a regular visit in May, to verify that Napolsky and Ermakova were in compliance with the rules set by the state, there was no trace of them.

Patronato del Liberado raised the alarm and Judge Sánchez Freytes was immediately notified. Counsel for the defense during the extradition hearings said that he hadn’t been able to contact the Russians either.

The Judge ordered an international arrest warrant although there appeared to be at least some hope the pair hadn’t left the country. However, that was many weeks ago and with no obvious news suggesting their recapture, the pair could be anywhere by now.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Anna’s Archive is a meta-search engine for shadow libraries that allows users to find pirated books and other related sources.

The site launched in the fall of 2022 , just days after Z-Library was targeted in a U.S. criminal crackdown, to ensure continued availability of ‘free’ books and articles to the broader public.

Late last year, Anna’s Archive expanded its offering by making information from OCLC’s proprietary WorldCat database available online. The site’s operators took more than a year to scrape several terabytes of data and published roughly 700 million unique records online, for free.

This ‘metadata’ heist was a massive breakthrough in the site’s quest to archive as much published content as possible. However, OCLC wasn’t pleased and responded with a lawsuit at an Ohio federal court, accusing the site and its operators of hacking and demanding damages.

The non-profit says that it spent more than a million dollars responding to Anna’s Archive’s alleged hacking efforts. Even then, it couldn’t prevent the data from being released through a torrent.

“Defendants, through the Anna’s Archive domains, have made, and continue to make, all 2.2 TB of WorldCat® data available for public download through its torrents,” OCLC wrote in the complaint it filed in an Ohio federal court.

No Response from Anna’s Archive

In the months that passed since then, the operators of Anna’s Archive didn’t respond in court. The only named defendant flat-out denied all connections to the site, and OCLC didn’t receive any response from any of the official Anna’s Archive email addresses that were served.

Meanwhile, the pirate library continues to offer the WorldCat® data, which is a major problem for the organization. Without the prospect of a two-sided legal battle, OCLC has now moved for a default judgment.

“OCLC respectfully prays that a default judgment be entered in its favor against defendant Anna’s Archive and that OCLC be granted declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and monetary damages,” the non-profit writes.

The plaintiff notes that it continues to fight an unknown defendant who is unwilling to show up in court. Therefore, a default judgment is the only option it has left.

Millions in Damages

While the exact scale of the damages has yet to be established, OCLC states that it has suffered considerable harm. In response to the massive scraping operation, which caused substantial downtime, its technical infrastructure had to be upgraded and improved.

For example, the organization spent $1,548,693 on upgrades for its hardware infrastructure, and an additional $608,069 for a two-year Cloudflare contract that helps to protect the service against malicious outside attacks.

Other costs include the salaries of 34 full-time employees, who were tasked with mitigating the harm caused by the attacks, as well as various other investigation, security, and hardware-related costs.

Adding up all the extra charges brings total damages to over $5 million; OCLC says the harm is ongoing, so that number continues to rise.

“OCLC has incurred damages of $5,333,064 as a direct result of Anna’s Archive’s cyberattacks, but that amount does not fully compensate OCLC for the harm from Anna’s Archive’s wrongful actions. OCLC continues to suffer from harms that cannot be remedied by monetary damages.”

Site Blocking?

In addition to monetary damages, the non-profit also seeks injunctive relief. The motion doesn’t specify the requested measures, but the original complaint sought an order that prevents Anna’s Archive from scraping WorldCat data going forward.

In addition, all previously scraped data should no longer be distributed. Instead, it should be destroyed in full, including all the torrents that are currently being offered.

OCLC says the requested injunctive relief is warranted, noting that this isn’t the first time that rightsholders have requested courts to take action against the site. Multiple countries and publishers have already recognized the illegality of Anna’s Archive’s pirate activities by issuing site blocking injunctions against its domains.

“Anna’s Archive has been banned in several other countries for its deliberate violations of copyright laws, and publishers are making shutting down Anna’s Archive a top priority,” the motion reads, referencing bans in Italy and The Netherlands .

“Therefore, the public interest will be served by an injunction that curtails the continuing harm from Anna’s Archive’s flagrant disregard for the law,” OCLC adds.

Domain Suspension?

The current motion doesn’t include a request for site blocking in the United States. However, it is possible that OCLC may ask more concrete measures in the future. That could also include a potential domain suspension.

In this light, it is interesting to note that Anna’s Archive moved away from its .org domain about a week ago. The .org domain is managed by the Public Interest Registry with Tucows as the registrar, both of which fall under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.

Anna’s Archive switched to a .GS domain instead, which falls under the UK-based Atlantis North registry. That domain was registered by domain privacy provider Njalla, which adds another layer of complexity from an enforcement perspective.

As things stand, it appears that Anna’s Archive is not going anywhere. While OCLC may very well have the law on its side, enforcing it may turn out to be quite the challenge.

—

A copy of OCLC’s request for a default judgment against the unnamed “Anna’s Archive” defendant, submitted at an Ohio federal court, is available here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Retelling a few funny stories about the early antics of Web Sheriff might be quite fun. At least until the realization that was around sixteen years ago when the internet wasn’t facing a serious threat of censorship and regulation.

So much has changed since then it would be difficult to recapture the essence of those stories today. However, the Web Sheriff’s plan to board and then scuttle The Pirate Bay stands out as a watershed moment in the development of alternate realities in the anti-piracy space.

Planned in absolute secrecy apart from a few press releases, it involved the formation of an elite unit to take down The Pirate Bay, once and for all. Led by a Sheriff, the team consisted of a construction worker, a cowboy, an intimidating fellow dressed head to foot in black leather, a policeman, a gentleman resplendent in full Indian regalia, and a lone GI bravely bringing up the rear.

Some say the imagery accompanying this bold anti-piracy operation aimed to disorientate and disrupt pirates by making them question their own sanity. Even to this day, some believe the campaign caused cognitive disruption and was responsible for inexplicable amnesia among pirates.

While everyone remembers the images, it’s perhaps telling that nobody can recall anything about the operation or its damaging effect on The Pirate Bay.

Yet, here we are a decade-and-a-half later, potentially witnessing something even bigger. A pair of genuine copyright complaints, sent by Web Sheriff to Cloudflare last week, are certainly disorientating. The fact that they caused Cloudflare to do something it rarely does, raises even more questions.

SmashyStream and Movielair Violated All the Laws

The notices sent to Cloudflare targeting SmashyStream and Movielair claim to protect the rights of EDGLRD, which according to the blurb on its website “is a new IP-based studio working with a network of leading artists, musicians & film directors.”

EDGLRD released a movie last September about an assassin on a mission to kill a demonic crime lord. It’s called Aggro Dr1ft, it co-stars Travis Scott, and was shot entirely in infrared. The trailer is headache inducing; yet somehow not as visually and mentally concussive as the takedown notices sent to Cloudflare.

An artist’s impression of the © copyrighted © copyright notices sent to Cloudflare

The takedown notices cannot be described as DMCA takedown notices due to their format. However, they’re pretty much identical and right off the bat deliver a powerful statement. For the reasons directly underneath, that doesn’t hinder reporting.

(Criticism Commentary News Reporting Public Interest Non-Fiction Work Ԁɐɹopʎ )

The nature of the take down notices requires direct quotation here to avoid misrepresentation. They amount to a smörgåsbord of allegations made under the legal system of an unidentified country and read as follows:

• Infringed / Violated Rights : A. COPYRIGHT, B. PERFORMERS’ RIGHTS, C. MORAL RIGHTS, D. RIGHTS-OF-PUBLICITY, E. CONSUMER PROTECTION RIGHTS
• Infringing / Violating Materials : PIRATED COPYRIGHT MOTION PICTURE(S) AND / OR TELEVISION PRODUCTION(S) AND / OR OTHER AUDIO-VISUAL RECORDING(S) – ‘AGGRO DR1FT’
• COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT (UNAUTHORIZED EXPLOITATION & DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION OF COPYRIGHT MATERIALS)
• PERFORMERS’ RIGHTS INFRINGEMENT (UNAUTHORIZED EXPLOITATION & DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION OF COPYRIGHT MATERIALS EMBODYING RECORDED PERFORMANCES / PERFORMERS’ RIGHTS)
• MORAL RIGHTS INFRINGEMENT (UNAUTHORIZED EXPLOITATION & DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION OF COPYRIGHT MATERIALS EMBODYING MORAL RIGHTS)
• RIGHTS-OF-PUBLICITY INFRINGEMENT (UNAUTHORIZED EXPLOITATION & DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION OF COPYRIGHT MATERIALS IN CONJUNCTION WITH NAME AND / OR LIKENESS)
• CONSUMER PROTECTION RIGHTS VIOLATIONS (THROUGH MISLEADING & DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES AND / OR FALSE ENDORSEMENTS & BOGUS AFFILIATIONS)
• BREACH OF ISP’S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE / ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY (BY REASON OF THE ABOVE INFRINGEMENTS & VIOLATIONS)
• BREACH OF SITE’S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE / ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY (BY REASON OF THE ABOVE INFRINGEMENTS & VIOLATIONS)
** TRADEMARK & GENERAL RESERVATION OF RIGHTS ** ALL REGISTERED, COMMON-LAW & PENDING TRADEMARK RIGHTS ARE HEREBY STRICTLY RESERVED (AS APPLICABLE) AND AS ARE ALL OTHER RIGHTS OF AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY NATURE (WHETHER EXPOUNDED HEREIN OR OTHERWISE).

Given that a notice in this format makes no attempt to comply with the requirements of the DMCA, some companies in the U.S. might choose to reject it. Nevertheless, it’s still made clear in the notices that access to infringing content needs to be prevented.

On that basis there’s no real reason not to take action and on that front, Cloudflare seems to agree.

Cloudflare Blocks Access to Movie ‘For Legal Reasons’

The ‘Error HTTP 451’ status code was approved by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) back in 2015 as a more informative alternative to the ‘403 Forbidden’ code utilized by some ISPs engaged in blocking.

While still relatively rare, it has appeared more frequently of late when users outside the bloc attempt to access content subject to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

On rare occasions, ‘Error HTTP 451’ has been observed when pirate sites are subjected to blocking orders. In 2020, Cloudflare began showing the code when DDL-Music was blocked under the orders of a German court.

As the images below show, the takedown notices on the left, sent by Web Sheriff to Cloudflare last week, now lead to the Error HTTP 451 status codes on the right.

Smashystream – Unavailable for legal reasons

Movielair – Unavailable for legal reasons

Both error pages link to copies of the takedown notices listed on the Lumen Database ( 1 , 2 ). That’s useful since they explain what prompted Cloudflare to implement blocking.

What’s So Special About These Notices?

As noted earlier, Error HTTP 451 status messages are a relative rarity for piracy-related content. What is even more unusual here, at least as far as we can determine, is that they relate to the specific URLs mentioned in the Web Sheriff takedown notices. Most if not all URLs on both sites appear to be available as normal.

The big question is why Cloudflare has responded in this way to a Web Sheriff complaint alleging violations of seemingly all IP-related laws in existence today, while (at least as far as we can determine) refusing to offer a similar service to the world’s largest movie studios?

At least in theory, how and where the websites are hosted could play a part (Cloudflare does block permanently hosted content following valid copyright complaints). At least one of the sites above uses infrastructure and/or content hosted in Malaysia, but that’s nothing out of the ordinary in itself, so other factors could be at play.

That seems to lead to an uncomfortable conclusion. While the combined might of the Web Sheriff and The Village People proved laughably ineffective against The Pirate Bay, a barrage of legal allegations – fired from a comically broad blunderbuss – appears to have prompted rarely-seen pinpoint blocking by Cloudflare.

People laughed at Web Sheriff’s earlier antics; they might not be laughing now.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

At the turn of the century, piracy was booming at university campuses across America and far beyond.

Seemingly unlimited broadband connections and the presence of many tech-savvy students provided an ideal breeding ground for the rapid expansion of the file-sharing craze.

Napster provided the spark and when that shut down, other software applications including Kazaa, LimeWire, and BitTorrent, fueled the fire in the years to come.

HEOA

This virtual free-for-all lasted for years and, in some places, continues to this day. In the United States, however, higher education institutions were forced to put the brakes on piracy due to the passing of the Higher Education Opportunity Act ( HEOA ) in 2008.

The HEOA requires American universities and colleges to adopt and implement effective anti-piracy policies. These should include technological anti-piracy measures as well as educational material to deter piracy.

If educational institutions fail to properly police piracy, they risk losing federal funding. This is the main reason why all higher education institutions have similarly worded ‘file-sharing’ and copyright warnings in place today.

It’s totally understandable that these policies remain in place. That said, the texts and warnings we ran into while reviewing some this week, could use a bit of an upgrade, to say the least.

Kazaa, BearShare, eDonkey, and eMule…

In the 16 years since HEOA passed, the online piracy landscape has changed dramatically. At the time, LimeWire was the most popular file-sharing tool , and names like Kazaa, BearShare, eDonkey, and eMule, were still top of mind.

These applications are dead and buried now; most collapsed under the weight of legal pressure. However, many American universities still caution their students not to use these applications for nefarious purposes.

A simple Google search instantly reveals dozens of live pages, many of which are updated regularly. For some reason, however, the LimeWire and Kazaa warnings are still front and center.

For example:

“In spite of court rulings holding that it is illegal, some people have continued to engage in so-called peer-to-peer (“P2P”) sharing of commercial copyrighted products, using software programs such as Morpheus, LimeWire, Grokster, and KaZaA. This activity is unlawful,” the University of Vermont cautions.

“It is not recommended to use file-sharing programs such as KaZaa, LimeWire, and Bearshare, unless you are familiar with their configuration,” Truman State University warns.

“Programs like Kazaa, Ares, iMesh and Limewire (Free and Pro versions) are popular ways to share music and movie files across the Internet, but they pose legal and security risks that can result in serious trouble for you – even court cases and fines,” Metro State University cautions.

“Peer-to-peer (P2P) applications such as BitTorrent, BearShare, Limewire, Morpheus, iMesh and KaZaA make it easy for you to share files,” the University of Texas writes.

“P2P typically requires a “client” – a software program installed on their personal computer – to share files. Examples of clients are Kazaa, Limewire, BearShare, uTorrent, etc. and other various BitTorrent clients,” the University of Alabama notes.

“File sharing applications such as KaZaA, BitTorrent, eDonkey, and LimeWire are not illegal, though many people using such applications share illegal materials, and don’t have permission to distribute them,” Brescia University explains.

Blubster, Gnucleus and Shareaza…

The good news is that most universities and colleges recognize that the technology itself isn’t to blame. File-sharing is fine, but piracy isn’t. However, cautioning against the unauthorized use of software that no longer exists is rather pointless.

The most impressive summary of file-sharing applications, which are nearly all defunct, comes from Boston University . Their list includes the following:

Acquisition, Aimster, Ares, Ares Lite, BearShare, Blubster, Direct Connect, eDonkey2000, Overnet, Freewire, Gnucleus, Grokster, GTK-Gnutella, iMesh, Kazaa Lite, Kazaa Lite K++, Kazaa Media Desktop, LimeWire, LordofSearch, Mactella, Morpheus, NeoNapster, OneMX, Phex, Piolet, Poisoned, Qtella, Shareaza, TrustyFiles, Warez P2P, WinMX, and XoLoX.

This list may bring back memories for those who went to university at the start of the millennium. Today’s students, however, will have no clue what it’s about since the pirates among them use more moderns apps and services.

Beware of Skype and World of Warcraft!

The above shows that many educational institutions should update their copyright policies and related file-sharing warnings. In their current form, they don’t make much sense.

This also applies to Stanford University, which has another gem in its “ Peer-to-Peer Traffic Advisory “. Apparently, Skype and World of Warcraft, can trigger file-sharing related warnings.

The Microsoft-owned communication app and Blizzard’s popular game relied on file-sharing technology in the past. This is still a concern for Stanford.

“Skype transmits phone calls over the Internet using software based on the KaZaa file-sharing protocol,” Stanford writes.

“World of Warcraft uses the BitTorrent protocol to distribute software patches, which are sometimes large enough to hit the PacketShaper’s radar,” the university adds.

As far as we know, Skype and World of Warcraft no longer trigger P2P detection systems such as PacketShaper , but the caution remains in place. Better safe than sorry, right?

Just to be clear, Stanford’s Peer-to-Peer Traffic Advisory was last updated on March 6, 2024.

—

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

When today’s home video gaming market took its first tentative baby steps thanks to more affordable hardware in the early 1980s, the details of Sony’s lawsuit against Datel would’ve been dismissed as outrageous.

This was a time of experimentation; one that thrived on the energy of pushing unimaginably incapable hardware by today’s standards, to perform in unexpected ways that often exceeded manufacturers’ expectations. In some cases, that included being able to run half-decent games, or even games at all.

Sony Wins Early But Cooler Heads Prevail

Software quite rightly receives protection under copyright law but in Datel, Sony wants a ruling that outlaws the modification of variables generated by software that only ever exist in RAM and form no part of the underlying copyrighted source code. Datel’s software simply ran alongside games like Motorstorm Arctic Edge, tweaking values in memory to modify how the game played.

In January 2012, the Hamburg Regional Court found largely in favor of Sony. The Court found that Datel’s software (Action Replay PSP and Tilt FX) intervened in the ‘program flow’ of Sony’s games and, by changing the flow, the original code was modified to create a derivative of Sony’s copyrighted game code.

The decision was overturned on appeal in 2021 and the case was dismissed. Sony appealed to the Federal Court of Justice which referred key questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling.

If Sony has its way and the protection software enjoys under the 2009 Computer Programs Directive is extended to transient variables in RAM, those who modify those variables – the users of tweaking software – would become direct infringers under copyright law. Creators of the software, in this case Datel, could be held secondarily liable.

Advocate General’s Opinion Nudges Case in the Right Direction

Advocate General Szpunar’s published opinion is not binding and the CJEU could ultimately decide on its own path.

The challenge, should one exist, would be to dismiss AG Szpunar’s conclusions as anything other than legally sound, impeccably researched, and flawlessy logical.

“[T]he value of the variables is not an element of a computer program’s code. They are merely data, external to the code, which the computer produces and reuses when running the program,” he writes.

“Those data do not exist at the moment that the program is created by its author or when it is loaded into the computer’s memory, since they are generated only while the program is running. They are therefore not such as to enable the program – or even a part of it – to be reproduced.”

Variables Are Not Creative Works

According to case law, the protection conferred by Directive 2009/24 is limited to source code and object code, both of which satisfy the criterion of originality set out in Article 1(3). Variables in RAM, on the other hand, do not satisfy the criterion of originality.

The variables are not the author’s own intellectual creation, AG Szpunar points out. On the contrary, the variables are the result of progress made in the game, and a direct result of the player’s behavior.

“It is indeed true that the author designed the categories of the variables that are recorded as well the rules whereby their value is determined in the course of the game. However, that value itself escapes the author’s creative control, since it is necessarily dependent on factors which cannot be foreseen in advance, such as the player’s behavior. That value therefore cannot enjoy copyright protection.”

Noting that the variables are “transitory, temporary and provisional,” and “often reset to zero” when a program is next run, the variables fail to meet the threshold for copyright protection since they cannot be identified with “sufficient precision and objectivity.”

More Restrictions, More Money

AG Szpunar’s opinion is lengthy, technical, and at times quite challenging to absorb. The blame for that sits squarely with Sony, whose mental gymnastics appear laser-focused on what it needs to win the case, and oblivious to almost everything else.

It’s perhaps telling that various intellectual property law firms commenting on the opinion are noting the AG’s advice, while also advancing theories that generated variables in RAM could reasonably be considered part of the overall creative package.

When work for companies like Sony pays the bills, advocating for greater restrictions on existing freedoms doesn’t lead to less business, let’s put it that way. That the opposite is being argued in legal matters relating to output from generative AI, is certainly interesting, if nothing else.

AG Szpunar’s Conclusion

Ultimately, AG Szpunar draws the following conclusion:

Article 1(1) to (3) of Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that the protection conferred by that directive pursuant to that provision does not extend to the content of the variables which the protected computer program has transferred to the RAM of the computer and uses in running it, in the situation in which another program operating at the same time as the protected computer program changes that content, without however the object code or the source code of the latter program being changed.

Full opinion available here

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.