Like many other countries around the world, India’s copyright law allows rightsholders to limit access to pirate sites.

Major entertainment industry companies regularly obtain injunctions that require local Internet providers to block websites to prevent piracy.

In essence, these measures are straightforward as specific domains are identified for blocking. However, injunctions can be issued before infringements take place and can be dynamic or temporary, depending on the situation.

In the early years, blocking injunctions were used as a blunt instrument, instructing Internet providers to block legal platforms such as Vimeo , while GitHub and the Internet Archive also ended up in the crosshairs years ago.

GitHub Blocking Troubles

Accuracy-wise, some progress has been made over the years but that doesn’t mean that overblocking is no longer an issue. Throughout this year, several GitHub users have reported persistent problems accessing the platform.

The issues related to GitHub appeared in January of this year, when several Indian developers noted that they could no longer use the site properly. The main Github.com domain was still accessible but raw.githubusercontent.com, where code is typically stored, was blocked.

This made it impossible for developers to work on projects and several applications that used GitHub-hosted code started to return errors.

“ This URL has been blocked under the instructions in compliance with the orders of a Hon’ble Court ,” a typical error message read.

Since some pirate apps use GitHub it’s possible that raw.githubusercontent.com was listed in a copyright-related injunction, resulting in massive overblocking. As far as we know, the court order in question hasn’t been published but several ISPs were affected.

Problems Persist Despite Reversal

After some backlash, the underlying order was reportedly retracted , after which GitHub started working properly again for most Indians; but not for all. After nearly a year, there are still widespread reports from people who can’t use the site.

The problem is discussed repeatedly on social media and local news outlets with users from ISPs such as JIO and Hathway complaining that raw.githubusercontent.com is not accessible.

“From the past few weeks I am unable to access raw.githubusercontent.com on my Jio network,” one Redditor writes, with many others sharing a similar experience. On X, several users are reporting that they continue to have issues too.

Not all subscribers appear to be affected and other Internet providers don’t appear to have the same issue. This suggests that the affected ISPs didn’t properly unblock the URL earlier this year when the court order was retracted.

GitHub Responds

GitHub is aware of the problems in India. The Microsoft-owned platform informs us that it’s investigating the issue to see if full access for all users can be restored.

“As the global home for all developers, we firmly believe that everyone should be able to contribute to the future of software development regardless of where they live,” GitHub informed us.

“We are aware of reports that there may be issues with accessing the raw.githubusercontent.com domain in India and are investigating to determine how access can be restored.”

Transparency / Speculation

The lack of transparency regarding Indian court orders and retractions doesn’t help to solve the problem. To the public at large, it still isn’t clear on what grounds GitHub was partly blocked.

One potential tie-in could be the PikaShow app. After becoming the official sponsor for the Afghani cricket team during last year’s Asia Cup, Indian rightsholders pulled out all the stops to block the app.

Through an injunction, GitHub was ordered to disclose information on the developers behind the PikaShow account, but it’s possible that a separate blocking order also targeted the site’s raw.githubusercontent.com URL.

The above is pure speculation, which emphasizes the need for more transparency. That’s especially important now that Indian authorities are requiring domain registrars to comply with blocking orders too if they want to continue operating in the country.

Meanwhile, the developers affected by the continuous blockade have to find ways around the technological restrictions. Luckily, that’s not too hard for this tech-savvy audience.

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

Created by software developer Elias Saba and released on the Amazon Appstore in November 2016, ‘Downloader’ offered two things; an empty URL field and a download button.

Downloader was intentionally basic but as a former Fire TV Product Manager at Amazon, Saba knew that a simple tool to transfer files would solve a fundamental shortcoming. Over 50 million installs of Downloader to date speak for the software’s popularity but in May 2023, progress came to a screeching halt.

Several Israeli TV companies filed a DMCA complaint at Google Play alleging that Downloader offered copyrighted content. The companies supplied no details of the content allegedly infringed and said nothing about how ‘Downloader’ somehow managed to violate copyright law.

Google suspended Downloader leaving Saba no other option than to file a DMCA counternotice. The developer was forced to wait 10 business days for the complainants to respond and a total of 20 days for Downloader to be restored. After almost three weeks offline, Downloader had lost 47% of its active users.

Just six months later and it’s happening all over again.

Another Baseless Copyright Complaint

Speaking with TorrentFreak last evening, Saba calmly explained that a new DMCA takedown notice, filed by India-based anti-piracy outfit Markscan, had resulted in Google suspending Downloader once again. The news was delivered by Google on Sunday evening via the notice below.

Deficient DMCA Notice, Entirely Deficient Claims

Given Downloader’s limited capabilities, even a sensible discussion on the merits would’ve required Markscan to come up with something special. In the event, the DMCA notice filed at Google Play falls substantially short of the established minimum standard for removing a single URL, let alone an app boasting 50 million downloads.

In response to a request to ‘Identify and describe the copyrighted work’ allegedly infringed, the response ‘Properties of Warner Bros. Discovery Inc.’ is especially unhelpful.

In 2022, Warner revealed that its library consists of more than 145,000 hours of programming, including 12,500 feature films and 2,400 television series comprised of more than 150,000 individual episodes.

Alleging infringement of just one of these copyrighted works would’ve been trivial, had the DMCA notice stated a valid claim against an app that carries and indexes zero content, and is substantially less functional than a web browser.

Google says that it was notified that Downloader “allegedly infringes upon the copyright of others, and violates applicable copyright laws in the relevant country/jurisdiction.” Logic suggests that any alleged infringement would indicate a violation of United States copyright law. However, if we take Markscan’s home turf as an example, are vague allegations acceptable in India?

Just two examples picked at random ( 1 , 2 , pdf) show that takedown notices filed by the same team offer a level of detail likely to meet standards almost anywhere. Why this wasn’t replicated in the complaint against Downloader raises serious questions.

Another DMCA Counternotice, More Time Offline

On Monday evening, Saba filed an appeal at Google Play and 24 minutes later received notification that it had been rejected.

As a result the developer followed up with a DMCA counternotice . No response had been received at the time of writing.

Shortly after, Saba was contact by Google AdMob who informed him that ads in the Downloader app will stop being served if it isn’t restored by Tuesday (today). The background to this message is interesting, as Saba explains.

“You see, I never had ads in my app and relied solely on donation buttons in the app. But when the app was suspended last time, I learned those donation buttons stop working, even for people that already had the app installed,” he informs TorrentFreak.

“As a backup plan, in case the app was suspended again, I added ads to the app for the first time. Now I know it was a mistake going with Google for the ads since, evidently, they break those as well when the app is suspended. I just can’t catch a break.”

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

Signed into law a quarter century ago, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) aimed to equip copyright holders with new tools to protect their works online.

A key element of the law requires online service providers to remove or disable access to infringing content in response to a takedown notice.

The system isn’t bulletproof. Rightsholders repeatedly complain that their content swiftly resurfaces after it’s removed. At the same time, the takedown process is abused by bad actors to censor or remove material in bad faith.

Shopify DMCA Harassment

DMCA abuse is nothing new, but it’s rare for online platforms to take public action against it, let alone take the matter to court. In an attempt to protect its vendors, e-commerce giant Shopify is one of the rare exceptions.

Last month, we reported that Shopify had filed a lawsuit against a “John Doe” who used DMCA takedown notices to remove listings from third-party stores. According to Shopify, the senders of these takedown requests did so without owning the rights.

This alleged scammer isn’t the only one wreaking havoc on the platform. A few days ago, Shopify filed a fresh DMCA abuse complaint at a Florida federal court. This time, the e-commerce platform has a named target; Orlando resident Amir Mokrian, a.k.a Clayton Burnz.

“Defendant Mokrian has repeatedly harassed, and continues to harass, Shopify merchants and Shopify itself through knowingly false allegations of copyright infringement. This lawsuit seeks to halt that misconduct and hold him accountable for the damage he has caused,” Shopify writes.

Dozens of False DMCA Notices

Shopify informs the court that it takes copyright infringement very seriously. The company receives thousands of notices each month and regularly removes shop listings deemed to be infringing. If a store owner is repeatedly targeted, they’re at risk of having their store closed completely.

The e-commerce platform relies on a mix of both human and automated reviews to process DMCA takedowns. This works well in most cases but the process is not bulletproof, as this lawsuit exemplifies.

Using several aliases including “Clayton Burnz”, Defendant Mokrian allegedly sent dozens of DMCA takedown notices to Shopify containing false claims. These requests targeted stores selling snore-reducing mouthguards and footwear insoles over alleged copyright infringement.

However, according to Shopify, these notices were littered with false information. They didn’t include any legitimate copyright complaints but were merely intended to harm other merchants.

Taking Out Competitors

The reason for this behavior is obvious; according to Shopify, Mokrian was running competing stores. By taking out the competition, interest in their own products should rise.

“It is plain that Mokrian submitted his fraudulent DMCA takedown notices for anti-competitive purposes. TeraNue—one of Mokrian’s stores on Shopify—sells snore-reducing mouthguards. Through his takedown notices, Mokrian targeted the same or similar mouthguard products sold by competing merchants,” Shopify informs the court.

“X-Care—another Mokrian store on Shopify—sells foot insoles, the same type of product sold by Rizzsoles.com, a Shopify merchant Mokrian targeted with his false notices. Mokrian used takedown notices not in an effort to root out copyright infringement, but in an effort to root out competition.”

Shopify ended up removing 38 competing products based on these false takedown claims. While these decisions were ultimately reversed, serious harm was done to both the affected shops and the platform itself.

The complaint notes that Shopify was financially impacted by the abuse. The company spent tens of thousands of dollars in personnel time and resources to address the issue. In addition, its goodwill was seriously harmed.

Through the lawsuit, Shopify hopes to be compensated for its losses. In addition, the company asks the Florida court for an injunction against the Orlando resident, prohibiting them from sending any fraudulent DMCA notices going forward.

—

A copy of the complaint Shopify filed at the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida is available here (pdf)

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

News that Sky had won a new High Court injunction to tackle pirate IPTV services first appeared in the Financial Times on July 30, 2023.

The article outlined an injunction similar to those previously obtained by the Premier League, noting that ISPs would be compelled to block Sky’s “best selling football games and blockbuster TV shows.” Why Sky would go to the trouble of obtaining an injunction to block access to matches, already being blocked by the Premier League, still makes little sense. Blocking TV shows was new, however.

Means to Shut Down Sites at Certain Times

The FT reported that the order obtained by Sky was designed to protect a “broader range of content” from across its programming.

“Sky will now have the means to shut down individual pirate sites at certain times,” the article noted, adding: “For example, the ruling could be used to block illegal access to The Ashes on Sky Sports Cricket, or to a specific show such as House of the Dragon on Sky Atlantic when it is first broadcast and reaches its largest audience.”

Apart from the apparent futility of blocking already blocked football matches, the report was entirely plausible and easily confirmed, had the actual High Court order been made available. Unfortunately, the UK’s system isn’t great and in the case of blocking injunctions, specific details are hidden to prevent circumvention. Even the names of the target IPTV providers can be difficult to determine, although not impossible.

Sky Causes Major Disruption

With almost no information accessible to the public and mystery surrounding Sky’s strategy, it’s impossible for outsiders to provide anything like a comprehensive overview. We certainly don’t claim to offer one here, but since all signs point to one of the most extraordinary mechanisms we’ve ever seen, taking a closer look seems warranted.

As reported earlier , BunnyStream, Enigma Streams, GenIPTV, CatIPTV, GoTVMix and IPTVMain are among the priority targets and from the information available to us, Sky’s blocking efforts have not gone unnoticed.

Providing exact dates is difficult and potentially unhelpful, but we estimate that over a period of four to six, maybe even eight weeks starting in August, Sky targeted between 80 and 100 domains/subdomains, most of them operated by the services listed above.

Subdomains were already in use on some platforms, but there are fairly clear signs that some targets deployed new subdomains as a countermeasure against blocking. At least for a while that can pay off, but we get the impression that Sky doesn’t wait long to respond either. In other cases, blocked domains seem to have been abandoned, suspended for abuse, or put up for sale.

Other countermeasures include the acquisition of new domains, backup domains being dusted off, and subscribers receiving advice to use a VPN to overcome blocking, as the text on one portal shows.

IPTV streaming is increasingly being targeted by cable operators and their lawyers. This has led to some IPTV services being blocked by ISPs. One popular example is the blockage of IPTV services regularly exhibited during Premier League matches in the UK.

Some IPTV services are able to circumvent this. However, the easiest and most reliable way to ensure you can still stream despite ISP blocks is to use a VPN.

Another 300 Blocks – But Blocking What?

With at least one of the targeted platforms resorting to what appear to be machine generated subdomains, Sky is certainly being kept busy, so at some point the High Court may be responsive to closing that loophole.

On top of what may have been the first batch of 90 domains/subdomains blocked previously, our estimates suggest another 250+ blocks since, and potentially more than 300. Whatever the true number, the volumes are high but as mentioned earlier, impossible for outsiders to properly measure.

That leaves the question of what Sky content these platforms are offering and how blocking that content dovetails with the order handed down in July. After obtaining a copy of the High Court order, the nature of the blocking is easily understood. Justice Meade’s key statements are as follows:

– The order sought has two elements, a dynamic block and a static block. Each of these, individually, is well precedented in decisions going back now over ten years in the case of the static blocking orders and, in many respects, the order sought today is a straightforward combination of those two types of orders.

– I do think it is appropriate to give some reasons in relation to the respects in which the orders sought today is different from what has come before. The significant difference, in my view, is that Sky seeks, in relation to the dynamic part of the order, to apply blocking measures at times and for periods of its choosing. The length of period and the amount of time that can be blocked per amount of calendar time is confidential (lest it facilitate evasion), and I will not state it in this judgment because I am sitting in open court.

– Under the proposed dynamic blocking approach, it would be Sky that chooses when to apply blocking measures, and for how long. The reason why this might be a potentially significant change is that it somewhat diminishes the amount of foresight that the court can use about the proportionality of the blocking. It might have, I was concerned, a slightly unpredictable effect or at least the capacity for an unpredictable effect. Without, as I say, going through the details of the periods permitted because they are confidential, I would be concerned about the effect that the new approach might have on the ISPs.

– That concern in relation to the ISPs is, of course, very substantially ameliorated by the fact that they have not opposed this order and have been in dialogue with Sky and its experts about what is proposed. On the evidence I have seen, I am satisfied that they are not unduly concerned.

These details pertaining to the blocking aspects of the injunction are certainly interesting. Unfortunately, the nature of the content that effectively authorizes blocking under the terms of the injunction is even less clear now than it was in the summer.

Not Particularly Valuable, “Relatively Banal” Content

Blocking injunctions have nearly always been sought to protect specific, high-value content. Hollywood obtains injunctions to protect movies and the recording industry aims to protect music, it’s usually as simple as that. The overall goal of the Sky injunction is no different in that respect.

However, it appears that unlicensed distribution of Sky’s most popular football matches, House of the Dragon, or other high-value content, isn’t the specific trigger for blocking under the terms of the injunction. Indeed, Justice Meade’s comments made at various points in the order indicate that the opposite is true.

– This is quite a significant departure from previous orders which have been more specifically targeted at, particularly, valuable content in the nature of a particular sporting events and the like.

– I do think the proportionality analysis is different and merits comment because the blocking is not, in this instance, targeted at particularly valuable or notable content.

– [T]he fact that the blocking windows permitted are not around the clock and are to be targeted by Sky at its own election, and the fact that that will, in principle, allow Sky to deploy blocking windows against content which might, theoretically, at least be relatively banal…

– Although the blocking is not necessarily to be directed to premium content, the goal of doing it is to protect that content and to protect the totality of Sky’s investment in its broadcast business as a whole.

Such an unorthodox yet innovative blocking injunction could be a sign that a specific issue presented unique challenges. We have no clear information to show that was actually the case, but coming up with a hypothetical scenario that fits isn’t too difficult.

Hypothetical Problem, Hypothetical Solution

Under EU law, sporting events are not classifiable as works under the Copyright Directive. Football matches, for example, are subject to the rules governing the game, which leaves no room for creative freedom. As a result, live football matches are not protected by copyright law.

However, if a live match is recorded before its onward transmission, augmented by unique copyrighted elements such as logos, graphics, incidental music, and other intellectual property already owned by a broadcaster, a match becomes a film protected under copyright law.

That might lead to a theoretical injunction application requesting site-blocking to protect ancillary content, but has the ultimate goal of protecting all content, in and around it, while potentially avoiding time-consuming licensing intricacies.

After all, site-blocking is a blunt instrument, so if a smash-hit TV show just happened to air seconds after a copyrighted advert, potentially containing copyrighted music theoretically owned by a broadcaster, blocking wouldn’t discriminate.

Useful collateral damage then? Possibly, at least in theory.

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

Ulož.to is one of the most popular sites in the Czech Republic, built on a reputation of allowing users to share files with each other and those further afield. In common with other sites operating in that field, Ulož has found the road ahead becoming increasingly complicated.

While users are free to share almost any file on Ulož, some inevitably share copyrighted content including music, movies, and TV shows. That has drawn negative attention from rightsholders who have sued the platform again and again. In July this year, one of those actions led to a local court fining the site for a movie uploaded by one of its users.

Ulož has also faced pressure to implement upload filters. Citing fears that over-blocking would ensue, Ulož resisted the calls and warned that restricting access to legal content would run contrary to EU law.

EU Law Forces Restriction of Content

To that background, an Ulož statement published Friday is somewhat ironic. Announcing fundamental changes to its business model, Ulož says that from December 1, 2023, users of its file-hosting services will only be able to download files they uploaded themselves. The change effectively ends file-sharing on Ulož and according to the site’s owners, the EU’s Digital Services Act is to blame.

“We have always carefully ensured that the operation of Uloz.to is in accordance with valid Czech and European legislation. This was repeatedly confirmed by court rulings in disputes, which were often purposefully conducted against us,” says Jan Karabina, CEO of Cloud Platforms, the company behind Uloz.to.

“In order to continue to meet all legal criteria in the future, especially in connection with the new European legislation, we are introducing significant changes to the functioning of the cloud storage Uloz.to Disk from 1 December 2023.”

Fundamental Changes Imminent

Now just a week away, Uloz characterizes the incoming changes as fundamental.

“Uloz.to Disk cloud storage services will only be accessible to registered users from Friday 1 December 2023. They will only be able to upload files that they have uploaded to the storage. It will not be possible to share the files to the public or to an address via a link,” the company’s announcement reads.

On a more positive note, Uloz says that users don’t have to worry about losing their files. If any customers are unhappy with the restrictions and don’t want to continue with a premium subscription, they can terminate their accounts or convert to a free package. In any event, any remaining subscription or credits will be refunded.

Digital Services Act

While Uloz notes that the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) imposes obligations on digital services acting as intermediaries, its announcement stops short of explaining exactly which parts of the DSA render its current business model untenable. There’s no shortage of candidates, however.

That ‘actual knowledge’ of illegal content is triggered when takedown notices are sent to intermediaries could prove itself to be a risk too far for those without deep pockets. Not allowing content to be shared with third-parties mitigates that, but given its scope and potential for being overly burdensome on smaller companies with disproportionately large userbases, the DSA’s requirements – as well-intentioned as they are – may have proven simply too much.

Finding itself nominated for notorious market status by the MPA last month is unlikely to have been welcomed by Uloz. Whether that contributed to the decision announced today is unknown but by disallowing file-sharing, it seems likely that Hollywood’s complaints will eventually fade into the distance.

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

While premium IPTV services have built a reputation for beating legal platforms on both selection and price, they also cost at least some money to access.

Sites offering ‘IPTV for free’ can go either way, but thanks to so-called ‘FAST’ services such as Pluto TV and Peacock TV, taking risks is no longer necessary. That’s if older mainstream content scratches the itch and users don’t mind lots of advertising.

Something For Everybody

If showman P. T. Barnum had offered IPTV, the content indexed by iptv-org would’ve been the perfect fit. An eclectic mix of thousands of free TV channels from all over the planet, complete with EPG and the ability to fine tune exactly the type of content received via customizable playlists , iptv-org really does have something for everybody.

As a result, iptv-org’s repo is regularly found trending on GitHub and this week is no exception.

The fact that iptv-org aims to index streams that are already publicly available is an interesting angle, since at least in theory it makes the project a less straightforward target for rightsholders. A legal notice on the repo explains how rightsholders can have links taken down but of course, removing links does nothing to remove the actual streams.

Not that any of those pointers make any difference to some, however.

LaLiga Battles Pirate IPTV and iptv-org

Top-tier Spanish football league LaLiga (Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional) finds itself in perpetual conflict with pirate IPTV providers and controversy is rarely far behind.

In 2018, LaLiga updated its Android app, turning fans’ phones into spying devices capable of identifying unauthorized broadcasts in bars and restaurants. That resulted in a large fine for privacy breaches but didn’t deter a more recent proposal to remotely delete pirate apps from users’ phones.

LaLiga also sends conventional DMCA takedown notices to numerous sites and services. The truncated example below dated November 20, 2023, was sent to Google and demands the removal of over 1,100 URLs from search results.

The first 18 URLs concern the iptv-org repo on GitHub, based on the specific allegation that “the reported website sells channel services or subscriptions to servers that provide decryption keys for payment channels in an unauthorized manner.”

LaLiga Takedown Notice (Full version courtesy of Lumen Database )

While iptv-org does accept donations via OpenCollective , it doesn’t sell access to channel services or subscriptions. Since the entire point of the project is to index streams already open to the public, the claim that iptv-org sells subscriptions to servers that provide decryption keys is hard to fathom.

Google Yet to Make a Decision

Whether any of LaLiga’s content appeared on a channel indexed by iptv-org is impossible to determine from the information to hand. The notice references no specific content allegedly infringed or any specific URLs/channels where infringement allegedly took place. Instead it tries to deindex the project itself from Google search by targeting everything from its main page to pages dedicated to licensing and frequently asked questions.

At the time of writing, Google lists 92.1% of the 1,151 URLs in the notice as ‘pending’ which suggests the search engine may be taking a closer look.

Whether GitHub has received any direct complaints from LaLiga about iptv-org is currently unknown. However, since GitHub itself has been heavily targeted by erroneous LaLiga takedown notices , additional scrutiny probably wouldn’t go amiss.

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

Under U.S. copyright law, Internet providers must terminate the accounts of repeat infringers “in appropriate circumstances.”

This legal requirement remained largely unenforced for nearly two decades but a series of copyright infringement liability lawsuits, including a billion-dollar damages award against Cox, have shaken up the industry.

Music Companies Sue Optimum

While Internet terminations are more common today, that hasn’t stopped the lawsuits. Last December, a group of music rightsholders including BMG, UMG, and Capitol filed a complaint at the Eastern District of Texas, accusing Optimum’s parent company Altice USA of facilitating massive copyright infringement.

The pirating activity of subscribers shouldn’t be a surprise for the ISP, plaintiffs argued, as the company received numerous copyright infringement notices. This included those sent by the tracking company Rightscorp , which were paired with settlement demands .

“Rather than work with Plaintiffs or take other meaningful or effective steps to curb this massive infringement, Altice chose to permit infringement to run rampant, prioritizing its own profits over the Plaintiffs’ rights,” the complaint read.

To make the music companies whole, they demanded roughly a billion dollars in damages and an order requiring Optimum to prevent repeat copyright infringements on its network going forward.

Questioning the Evidence

Optimum’s parent company fiercely denies the allegations and argues that it’s protected by the DMCA’s safe harbor. To mount a proper defense, the ISP is conducting discovery for the upcoming trial, showing particular interest in Rightscorp’s piracy evidence.

Specifically, the ISP believes that the reliability and accuracy of Rightscorp’s detection system are central to its defense. Thus far, however, the piracy tracking company has failed to hand over all requested information.

To force the matter, Altice submitted a motion to compel Rightscorp to comply with the subpoenaed information. In its request, the company also scolds the music companies for trying to turn ISPs into copyright police, while characterizing Rightscorp’s copyright notices as ‘spam’.

“This case is the latest attempt by the music industry to engineer a copyright-liability regime that makes ISPs responsible for all infringement that takes place on the internet—and thereby turn ISPs into their de facto enforcers.

“Rightscorp intentionally sends out millions of notices a year, and includes threatening settlement demands therein, as it stands to gain a portion of each settlement received as a result of each notice. In reality, the volume of these notices is so high that it risks crippling Altice’s systems,” the motion adds.

More Information Needed

If the music companies want to hold Optimum liable for the copyright infringements of its subscribers, the ISP wants to review all underlying evidence in detail. Although Rightscorp has handed over some information, including notices and spreadsheets with metadata, the ISP seeks more.

For example, Rightscorp should be able to share information on its agreements with the music company plaintiffs, assessments of the accuracy of its piracy detection system, documents related to settlements with the ISP’s customers, and more.

“Given that the notices are at the center of the lawsuit between the Plaintiffs and Altice, Altice is seeking evidence concerning the accuracy and reliability of Rightscorp’s systems for detecting infringement and sending notices, as well as the data, evidence, records, or information on how Rightscorp verified the files before sending such notices,” the motion reads.

The complaint itself doesn’t include any of this information. Instead, the plaintiffs refer to Rightscorp, which takes a central role in this case as a result.

Rightscorp has yet to file a response to the motion, which is due mid-December. After that, the court will decide whether the piracy tracking company must hand over additional information, or not.

—

A copy of Optimum’s patent company Altice USA’s request for a motion to compel Rightscorp to comply with the subpoena is available here (pdf)

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

When cassette recorders, VCRs and similar devices hit the mainstream, entertainment companies with business models reliant on customers buying copies faced uncertainty.

The fear of consumer copies was encapsulated by the now-famous words of the MPAA’s Jack Valenti: “The VCR is to the American film producer, as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone,” Valenti said.

With the benefit of hindsight the VCR did more to help than it did to hinder but still, copying carried out privately in the home was considered a major threat with few enforcement options.

Private Copying Levy

Valenti’s statement in 1982 reached a broad audience but its essence wasn’t new. The potential for blank media to undermine the creative industries saw Germany introduce a levy in 1966, usurping the exclusive reproduction right with a right to equitable remuneration.

In 1985, France introduced “remuneration for private copying” to ensure that rightsholders were compensated for any harms caused by private copying of their works. A levy was placed on sales of blank media such as cassette tapes but as technology progressed, the levy became applicable to CDs and other recordable media.

Today, smartphones are the main source of private copying revenue which according to figures from 2021, now generates around €300 million per year for rightsholders.

Pushback Begins

While an annual boost of €300 million is good news for the beneficiaries, some believe the levy system is outdated and unnecessarily opaque. Since the price of a mobile phone 64GB and above is inflated by roughly 17 euros, whether anything is copied on the device or not, some have described the levy as anti-consumer too.

Compensation is paid to rightsholders through the company Copie France, at rates decided by a committee consisting of rightsholders, manufacturers of recording media, and consumers.

A French government report on private copying compensation published in October 2022 ( pdf ) offered several proposals for improvement. Noting that the rightsholders themselves provide usage statistics, using methods dating back a decade, calculation methods need to be updated transparently to reflect the reality of private copying today, in a market dominated by streaming.

French Politician Responds to Government Report

A L’Informe report published Monday reveals proposals from Member of Parliament Philippe Latombe in response to the government’s report.

Latombe’s first proposal is to transfer the decisions on how much levy is applied to each medium into the hands of the government.

“[I]n the same way as the finance law or the social security financing law, parliamentarians must be decision-makers and accountable to our fellow citizens,” the politician explains.

Latombe isn’t proposing the end of the existing panel (Private Copying Commission) but says its role should be to propose rates to parliament. L’Informe notes that the panel would also be prevented from initiating usage studies carried out by private companies at the levy fund’s expense. Instead, that work should be carried out by telecoms regulator, Arcom.

People Pay Levy Who Shouldn’t, Devices Shouldn’t Incur Levy Twice

The MP also criticizes the current system where the levy is collected on smartphones and tablets at the point of import, something that forces professional end buyers not liable to pay the levy, to enter a process to try and claim the excess back. Overpayments are currently estimated at between 40 and 50 million euros, so there are calls to simplify the process and ensure quicker refunds.

Latombe’s third proposal is to exempt smartphones and tablets reconditioned in France, currently subjected to a levy of 10 euros per unit. This would not only promote the use of the recycling market, protect the environment and create jobs, but would also ensure that devices would remain accessible to the socially disadvantaged.

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

In 2021, the US Department of Justice launched a criminal proceeding against two men suspected of running a massive YouTube Content ID scam.

YouTube’s flagship anti-piracy system is supposed to protect rightsholders but, in this case, it was used to exploit them.

Multi-Million Dollar Scam

The scammers’ company, MediaMuv LLC., wasn’t a direct member of the Content ID program. Instead, it operated through a trusted third-party company, which had access to the platform.

By falsely claiming to own the rights to more than 50,000 copyrighted songs, the scammers generated more than $23 million in revenue.

In 2022, the first defendant confessed to his part in the copyright swindle by pleading guilty. Webster Fernandez admitted it was a simple scheme: find Latin music that wasn’t yet monetized on YouTube and claim the content as their own.

In February of this year, the second defendant pleaded guilty. Jose Teran signed a plea agreement admitting that he was part of the conspiracy, engaging in wire fraud and money laundering.

Prison Sentences

The guilty pleas may have helped to reduce their sentences but the defendants didn’t get off easily. This summer, a federal court in Arizona handed a 70 month prison term to Mr. Teran, to be followed by three years of probation.

A few weeks later, the same court sentenced Mr. Fernandez to 46 months in prison for his role in the conspiracy, to be followed by three years of supervised release.

In addition to the jail time, both convicts had to forfeit multiple possessions related to their crimes, including bank accounts, several pieces of real estate, and cars.

$3.3 Million Restitution

At the time of the sentencing, the authorities requested victims of the YouTube Content ID scam to come forward, as they are entitled to restitution. The MediaMuv operation mostly targeted Spanish language artists, who were not monetizing their content on YouTube yet.

Over the past several weeks, hundreds of these artists submitted their claims, ranging from a few dozen dollars, to well over $100,000. Some of these artists were represented by lawyers or their label and the RIAA submitted a claim on behalf of artists as well.

All told, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and defense attorneys agreed to a total restitution amount of more than $3.3 million, which is due immediately.

“The United States, counsel for Webster Batista, and counsel for Jose Teran, respectfully stipulate to the restitution amount of $3,365,352.85,” the stipulation reads.

“Along with the other standard conditions concerning the repayment of restitution, the parties agree that Webster Batista and Jose Teran will be jointly and severally liable for the restitution, restitution is due immediately, and Batista and Teran be ordered to make minimum monthly payments..”

A quick tally shows that roughly 800 affected artists came forward. One of the largest claims comes from Cecilia Ramirez, widow of the Mexican singer-songwriter Agustín Ramírez , who was the frontman of the band Los Caminantes. Ramírez passed away last year.

The RIAA’s claim totals $1,247,719.76 and is based on falsely claimed music of hundreds of artists, as detailed in this 57-page exhibit .

Both convicted defendants are jointly and severally liable for the restitution payments. How long it will take to repay the affected artists will depend on their income and available funds.

A copy of the joint stipulation on the restitution amount is available here (pdf) . The amount was agreed upon by all parties and granted by the Arizona federal court earlier this week.

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