Filed in February 2022, a DISH Network copyright infringement lawsuit demanded $32.5m in damages from UK-based CDN company DataCamp.

The complaint alleged that DataCamp failed to take appropriate action against 11 pirate IPTV services flagged by DISH as repeat infringers, through the sending of more than 400 DMCA notices to DataCamp.

Similar lawsuits have become fairly common in recent years and when copyright holders prevail, damages awards can reach hundreds of millions of dollars. It’s therefore no surprise when defendants, including ISPs and hosting providers, find themselves under considerable pressure to settle.

Earlier this year the parties in the DISH matter said that a settlement was being discussed for a second time, just as DataCamp found itself under mounting pressure in an increasingly complex case.

Dramatic developments this week indicate that an amicable settlement is of no interest to DataCamp. The company’s answer and counterclaims contain allegations that, if proven true, could have serious implications for this case and raise questions about many others.

DISH Holds Exclusive Rights to TV Channels

Most if not all infringement lawsuits filed by DISH in recent years have centered on a number of TV channels for which it holds exclusive rights in the United States.

Typical DISH lawsuits filed against pirate IPTV services claim that, since these channels were made available in violation of DISH’s rights, operators are liable for damages under the Federal Communications Act or the Copyright Act.

More recently, DISH favored claims under the Copyright Act, alleging various types of copyright infringement, depending on the defendant and circumstances. DataCamp faces secondary copyright infringement claims, none of which hold water, the company now insists.

“DISH claims it entered into signed, written licensing agreements with the Networks granting DISH the exclusive right to distribute and publicly perform the Channels by means including satellite, over-the-top (OTT), internet protocol television (IPTV), and internet,” DataCamp’s filing informs the court.

“The Channels are not Registered Copyrighted Works with the U.S. Copyright Office. The United States Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff, such as DISH, cannot file suit for unregistered works. DISH has alleged copyright infringement for Unregistered Works in its Complaint.”

The ‘Phony Infringement Notice Scheme’

DataCamp alleges that around October 2017, DISH began sending infringement notices to DataCamp after “concocting a scheme” with anti-piracy partner NagraStar and its law firm. The CDN company says the aim was to “aggressively monetize DISH’s contractual rights under the guise of United States Copyright Law.”

DataCamp claims that the targets in this alleged scheme were smaller companies, including DataCamp, for the purposes of “extorting money” from them. DataCamp was to be used “as an example to bully the rest of the industry.”

According to DataCamp’s counterclaims, the plan was to use the DMCA to pressure smaller companies into compliance. This would enable them to avoid expensive and brand-tarnishing litigation, irrespective of whether the underlying claims were of substance, the CDN company states.

While DataCamp’s allegations are not yet supported by detailed evidence, the UK-based company takes the opportunity to recall some of its own experiences.

DISH TV Channels Are Not Copyrighted Works

“Having been repeatedly threatened with litigation/prosecution, DataCamp believed it had no choice but to comply with DISH’s demands by terminating its customers’ accounts, even when some customers claimed that no infringement occurred and despite DISH’s failure to provide proof of ownership/authority to sue, or proof of infringement, as required by the DMCA,” the company notes.

“In fact, DISH did not possess exclusive rights to any actual identified Copyrighted Works in question. Rather, DISH merely has limited contractual rights to ‘Channels,’ which are not Registered Copyright Works, and are not categorically protected under U.S. Copyright Law. DISH therefore is oddly and improperly trying to leverage its distribution agreements to secure exclusive rights not granted by the U.S. Copyright Office.”

DataCamp then arrives at what it believes to be the crux of the matter. The company alleges that DISH “illicitly and improperly” secures rights in certain TV programming that has not been registered with the Copyright Office. In this case, DISH says the plaintiffs’ sole purpose was to “bully” DataCamp into an agreement.

Dish institutes this action for the primary, if not sole, purpose of bullying DataCamp into agreement to a False Public Judgement for tens of millions of dollars which DISH would agree, in private, never to execute on so that DISH would lie to the industry and terrorize and intimidate other companies like DataCamp into giving into its demands for money, attorneys’ fees, and control of the Alleged Direct Infringers

DataCamp informs the court that it “rejected this fraudulent, false, unethical demand out of hand,” adding that DISH still isn’t taking no for answer and persists with its demands for what DataCamp says would be a “bizarre result.”

“DISH actually claims proudly that it ‘does this all the time’,” DataCamp continues.

“DISH’s demands for the creation of a fraudulent judgment would be a fraud on the Court and the Public which DataCamp will not be a party to.”

Counterclaims: Fraud, Deceptive Practices, Racketeering, Conspiracy

DataCamp alleges that DISH misrepresented its exclusive right to any copyright works, its authority to enforce, its possession of registrations for copyright works, and the lawfulness of more than 400 DMCA notices.

“DISH acted intentionally and/or with a reckless disregard for the truth because it (a) knew of the requirements of the DMCA and Copyright Law; (b) repeatedly engaged in this deceptive conduct with DataCamp as well as other service providers; (c) had no genuine concern for any specific Copyrighted Works at issue as evidenced by the demanded False Public Judgement,” DataCamp’s counterclaim reads.

DISH conduct shows a “pattern of racketeering” including fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud, DataCamp continues, noting it was injured as a result of “these RICO violations.” In respect of the allegedly “phony infringement notices” sent to DataCamp, these are claimed to have had an ulterior motive of assisting DISH to enforce its contractual rights, rather than protect against copyright infringement.

DataCamp rounds off its counterclaims with allegations of civil conspiracy against DISH, Nagrastar, and its law firm, for operating a scheme that induced DataCamp to wrongfully comply with invalid notices, causing significant costs, expenses, and loss of customers. The company seeks damages and a trial by jury.

DataCamp’s answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims, are available here (pdf)

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

After reading the introduction to Bungie’s latest lawsuit, which targets makers and sellers of Destiny 2 cheats, one gets the impression the developer may be starting to enjoy this fight.

A Bungie-compiled list of online aliases, including PRAGMATICTAX, NOVA, J3STER and CYPHER, are the latest individuals to face legal action for developing, marketing, selling, and providing customer support for, tools that enable cheating in the blockbuster online game, Destiny 2.

Ten named defendants, several of them already identified by both alias and real name, sit atop a pre-allocated space marked ‘JOHN DOES NO. 11-50.’ At this stage of Bungie’s crusade against cheaters and those who enable them, it’s unlikely that space will remain empty for long.

Bungie vs. Ring-1: An Ongoing Saga

The lawsuit filed Tuesday at a Washington court shows a fine-tuning of Bungie’s legal tactics and a determination to finish the mission, even if that requires several bites of the cherry.

Individuals behind cheat maker and distributor, Ring-1, were targeted in a Bungie lawsuit back in 2021 . Bungie listed six causes of action including copyright infringement, trafficking in circumvention devices contrary to the DMCA, trademark violations, and unfair competition.

In February 2023, after reaching settlements with three defendants, a California court rejected Bungie’s request for a $2.2m judgment . With Ring-1 still in business today, Bungie now appears ready to finish the job.

”The days of Destiny 2 cheaters being free to engage in a wholesale assault on the Destiny 2 game and its community without fear of consequences are over”

(Bungie statement in new Ring-1 lawsuit)

Basis For Complaint

The introduction highlights Bungie successes in earlier lawsuits and suggests there’s now little need to establish whether certain types of conduct amount to an offense.

The sale and use of cheat software “violates a raft of federal and state laws, breaches users’ contracts with Bungie, and is a basis for significant tort liability,” Bungie writes. “Cheat manufacture and sale has been repeatedly found to violate copyright law [and] the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions,” the company continues, adding that when defendants are sufficiently organized, RICO violations enter the mix.

RICO violations formed no part of the lawsuit against Ring-1 defendants in 2021, but they certainly do now. Highlighting the refusal of Ring-1 to curtail its activities, Bungie lays down the law.

“Bungie’s litigation, and litigation victories, have not gone unnoticed; they have been widely covered in the gaming industry press and beyond. Defendants, in other words, have been more than placed on notice that their conduct is tortious, wrongful, and in fact illegal, and have had every opportunity to voluntarily cease it,” the complaint reads.

“Instead, the Ring -1 Enterprise has deliberately and willfully continued to engage in that conduct, secure in the belief that they can avoid consequences for it. And the Ring -1 Cheat is particularly dangerous, predicated on an insidious misuse of the hypervisor layer of users’ operating systems that puts their computers and others’ at risk.”

Ring-1 Defendants, From the U.S. to Australia

The investigation mantra “follow the money” appears to have bypassed lead defendant Joshua Fisher. The complaint notes he’s a resident of Birmingham, UK, and the sole proprietor of payment processing company, Paydash. That’s almost correct; Fisher was indeed the sole director of Paydash Limited, at least until it collapsed into liquidation more than a year ago, after failing to file its first set of accounts.

Liquidation documents make no mention of Bungie’s allegations, including the claim that Paydash processed Ring-1 payments while acting as a “middleman reseller” for Ring-1 cheats. Public records show that Paydash’s attempt to remain anonymous by utilizing a London virtual office address were undermined by Fisher’s address disclosures relating to at least one other business. Other defendants made poor choices too.

Bungie claims that defendant Jacob W. Mahuron is a Ring-1 support staffer residing in Delaware, who goes by the username “PragmaticTax” on the Ring-1 forums. Fellow support staffer Matthew Abbott (a/k/a “Nova”) allegedly lives in West Virginia, while David Hastings (J3STER) managed to keep his physical location private.

While there are lessons to be learned about using the same username internet-wide, the above defendants all used Discord. Bungie made a note of their unique IDs so whatever Discord has on file, is likely to be handed over as the case develops.

Other defendants include Travers Rutten (Travers7134), an alleged reseller residing in Brisbane, Australia, and reseller Jesse Watson (jessewatson3944) of ‘physical location unknown’ but resident of the ‘Softaim Express’ Discord server. ‘Calc’ is allegedly a Ring-1 developer, ‘Cypher’a Ring-1 staff member, ‘Khaleesi’ a support staffer, and the list goes on.

“Doe Defendants Nos. 11-50 are persons and parties whose identities are currently unknown to Bungie, but who, upon information and belief, are both complicit in Defendants’ torts and members in fact of Defendants’ racketeering enterprise, including cheat developers, resellers, administrators, and other agents of the enterprise,” Bungie adds.

Bungie Goes For the Jugular

The defendants face allegations of copyright infringement, Civil RICO (racketeering: wire fraud, criminal copyright infringement, money laundering), circumvention of technical measures in violation of the DMCA, violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Breach of Contract, Interference with Contractual Relations, and Civil Conspiracy.

“This conspiracy directly harmed Bungie, through lost business, an injured reputation, and the significant expense of its anti-cheating measures. As a result of the foregoing, Bungie is entitled to an award of damages in an amount to be proven at trial,” Bungie concludes.

Bungie’s complaint can be found here (pdf)

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

The DMCA takedown process allows copyright holders to report infringing content and have it removed or taken down.

It is a powerful tool that takes millions of URLs and links offline every day. In most cases, this happens for a good reason, but some takedown efforts are more questionable.

Fraudsters have previously used false DMCA notices to target competitors. The strategy can be particularly effective when notices are sent to Google, as the search engine actively downranks domains that are frequently mentioned in takedown requests.

YTMP3.nu

Notices sent by legitimate music industry groups such as the BPI and RIAA contain claims that YTMP3.nu violates the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision. However, the YouTube-ripping service also views itself as a victim of bogus takedown notices sent by one or more competitors.

In an effort to curtail the abuse, earlier this year the site sent a cease and desist letter to Google, asking the search engine to begin verifying senders of DMCA notices. In addition, YTMP3.nu also asked for a litigation hold in anticipation of future legal action.

The letter didn’t prompt Google to launch an official verification procedure but the YouTube ripper did follow up on its legal threat, although Google itself isn’t a direct target.

Lawsuit Against DMCA Fraudsters

In response to a series of allegedly fraudulent notices, yesterday the operator of YTMP3.nu and Y2mate.nu filed a complaint at a federal court in California. The complaint alleges that the sites are being targeted by one or more competitors with the aim of disappearing the sites from search results.

YTMP3.nu and Y2mate.nu are operated by CreativeCode Ltd, a company incorporated in Anguilla, a small island in the Eastern Caribbean. With more than 40 million monthly visits, Y2mate has a particularly large userbase that is monetized through advertising.

YouTube-ripping sites apparently operate in a competitive industry. In recent weeks, some unknown person or persons targeted the YTMP3.nu and Y2mate.nu domain names with takedown notices without proper cause, the complaint alleges. The defendants are not known by name yet and are referred to as ‘does’ for now.

“Starting on or about June 27, 2023, Defendants began to submit fraudulent DMCA notices to Google, falsely alleging that the Websites were infringing on copyrights held by Defendants and that the Websites implemented software that circumvented technologic barriers regarding copyright[sic],” the complaint reads

“This has caused Google to either delist or downgrade Plaintiff’s websites’ search results on its search engine, resulting in greatly reduced traffic to Plaintiff’s websites and causing Plaintiff significant damages.”

The complaint doesn’t specify what impact the notices had on revenues, but it notes that traffic to the sites reduced by approximately hundreds of thousands of clicks per day.

Rick Astley

While both YouTube rippers have been targeted by legitimate rightsholders in the past, the defendants in this lawsuit clearly fall into a different category. Their notices often fail to list a copyrighted work or reference rather dubious copyright holders.

The complaint lists an example of a DMCA notice that was sent by “End Of YouTube Converter,” claiming to protect the Rick Astley track “Never Gonna Give You Up.” Mr. Astley’s hit song has taken many people by surprise over the years, but the rights to the song are not held by “End Of YouTube Converter”.

“It is clear that ‘End Of YouTube Converter’ does not own the copyright to ‘Never Gonna Give You Up’ (and is not otherwise authorized by the actual rights holder). Instead, the copyrights for ‘Never Gonna Give You Up’ are held by All Boys Music, Ltd., for the words and music, and BMG Music for the sound recording of Rick Astley’s performance on the 1987 record Whenever You Need Somebody,” the complaint continues.

Google is known to remove YouTube-ripper URLs in response to takedown notices sent by legitimate copyright holders, but this one doesn’t appear to fall into that category.

F*** You!

CreativeCode’s attorney previously sent cease-and-desist letters to multiple email addresses suspected of being behind these fraudulent takedowns. While the emails were not answered directly, a recipient ostensibly replied through yet another DMCA notice.

The takedown notice in question sent an indirect message that wasn’t too hard for the attorney to unravel.

“This Defendant, cheekily, but in complete disregard and violation of United States law, sent a DMCA Notice to Google referencing the YouTube page of Ceelo Green’s hit 2010 single, ‘F*** You!’,” the complaint explains.

“Clearly, the cease-and-desist letter struck its target, receiving an unsubtle and churlish response. This provides even further evidence that the DMCA Notices are fraudulent and meant for no other purpose than to harass.”

Trial and Damages

On top of their complaints concerning the bogus notices, the YouTube rippers further stress that they shouldn’t be classified as anti-circumvention tools under the DMCA. While that’s not needed to make a claim here, it suggests that CreativeCode also objects to notices from legitimate rightsholders.

The company sees its websites as content-neutral services. While music companies often complain about music downloaded through the sites, the YouTube rippers highlight a variety of non-infringing uses.

That said, this case is primarily targeted at competitors, not actual rightsholders. Through discovery, YTMP3.nu and Y2mate.nu hope to pinpoint and then name the perpetrators.

The complaint calls for a trial and accuses the defendants of violating the DMCA, Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, and breaching California’s Unfair Competition Law. Through the lawsuit, the YouTube rippers hope to recoup at least $500,000 in damages.

—

A copy of the complaint filed on behalf of CreativeCode LTD at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is available here (pdf)

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

Millions of people regularly pirate movies and music without getting into trouble. In fact, some pirates even discuss their habits openly on the Internet, on platforms such as Reddit, for example.

Admissions of anonymous Redditors typically go unnoticed by copyright holders but even when observed, it’s rare for companies to take matters further or ask any questions. A group of independent filmmakers in the United States recently attempted to buck that trend.

The film companies and their attorney Kerry Culpepper are not planning to take any Reddit users to court. However, they do want to reach out to them to ask some questions about their Internet providers, which are being targeted in various lawsuits.

Filmmakers vs. Anonymous Redditors

Earlier this year, the filmmakers turned to Reddit after they found public comments that may help their case. As part of the RCN lawsuit, they identified several potentially relevant threads and requested a DMCA subpoena, hoping to compel Reddit to identify the anonymous users.

The Redditors in question discussed issues such as RCN’s handling of copyright infringement emails. The filmmakers could use this information to their advantage, but only if they obtained the identities of the commenters first.

Reddit was unhappy with the subpoena and only handed over the details of one user whose comment mentioned RCN. Reddit refused to hand over the details of users who posted ‘less relevant’ comments, arguing that their First Amendment right to anonymous speech outweighs the interests of rightsholders.

The court eventually agreed with this defense, concluding that Redditors’ First Amendment right to anonymous speech should be protected. According to U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, the filmmakers have other options to obtain this type of information, including through RCN itself.

Another ISP, Another Reddit Subpoena

Judge Beeler’s ruling was a setback for the filmmakers but a few weeks ago they returned to court with a similar request. Targeting a new group of Redditors, this time the request was related to the filmmakers’ piracy liability lawsuit against Internet provider Grande .

The Reddit users all commented in threads with information that could be relevant to the Grande lawsuit, with many directly referring to piracy activity.

The filmmakers argue that the Redditors can be used as witnesses to show that Grande failed to properly implement a repeat infringer policy, with that failure acting as a draw to potential subscribers.

Reddit again refused to identify its users , arguing that the right to anonymous speech outweighs the interests of the film companies. Reddit does not deny that its users are relevant, but the company stresses that the information sought by the filmmakers can also be obtained from other sources.

Among other things, Reddit refers to the filmmakers’ statement that they had already obtained a list of the 118 top pirating IP addresses from Grande. While initial attempts to contact those people didn’t lead to useful information, the filmmakers didn’t subpoena these potential witnesses.

Court Protects Redditor’s Right to Anonymous Speech

After reviewing arguments presented by both sides, the motion to compel was denied by the court. This means that Reddit doesn’t have to identify the anonymous Redditors.

“The court denies the motion because the plaintiffs have not demonstrated a compelling need for the discovery that outweighs the users’ First Amendment right to anonymous speech,” Judge Beeler concludes in her order.

The court doesn’t disagree that the Redditors could offer usable testimony. However, since the filmmakers can also obtain this information from other sources, unmasking the anonymous users would go too far.

Subpoenaing (some of) the 118 top pirating Grande users directly would make more sense. That information will be more recent than the rather dated Reddit comments and wouldn’t necessarily require more time.

“They are the top pirating IP addresses, and they are from a more recent time period: it is not obvious why subpoenaing even a subset of those addresses would not yield information at least equivalent to, if not better than, information from the six Reddit subscribers.

“The [Reddit] information may be relevant, but it is also attenuated: it is at best weak evidence about Grande’s insufficient policy regarding repeat infringers or its appeal to pirating subscribers,” Judge Beeler adds.

In addition to the five Reddit ‘witnesses’ who made general piracy-related comments about Grande, the filmmakers singled out a 12-year-old comment from the user “xBROKEx”, who specifically mentioned having pirated the movie The Expendables.

This comment could, in theory, provide evidence for a direct copyright infringement lawsuit. However, Judge Beeler treated this person as a witness because the filmmakers failed to make a prima facie copyright infringement case against this person.

All in all, the denial means that the identities of the six Reddit users won’t be shared with the filmmakers. While the users aren’t accused of any wrongdoing, not being dragged into a copyright dispute through the side door is likely to be a relief.

The filmmakers, meanwhile, have to find other ways to obtain the required information. Whether they will try to get information from Reddit again in the future is unknown. If they do, they would likely have to seek a new approach.

—

A copy of U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler’s order on the motion to compel is available here (pdf)

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

Unanimously approved by the Chamber of Deputies back in March and then unanimously approved by the Senate earlier this month, Italy’s new anti-piracy law has just been unanimously approved by telecoms regulator AGCOM.

In a statement published Thursday, AGCOM welcomed the amendments to Online Copyright Enforcement regulation 680/13/CONS , which concern measures to counter the illegal distribution of live sports streams, as laid out in Resolution 189/23/CONS.

The new provisions grant AGCOM the power to issue “dynamic injunctions” against online service providers of all kinds, a privilege usually reserved for judges in Europe’s highest courts. The aim is to streamline blocking measures against unlicensed IPTV services, with the goal of rendering them inaccessible across all of Italy.

“With such measures, it will be possible to disable access to pirated content in the first 30 minutes of the event broadcast by blocking DNS resolution of domain names and blocking the routing of network traffic to IP addresses uniquely intended for illicit activities,” AGCOM says.

Dated July 14, 2023, the law ( LEGGE 14 luglio 2023, n. 93 ) underpinning the new measures will come into force on August 8, at which point AGCOM says it will be able to disrupt the pirated broadcasting of all events transmitted live, whether sport-related or otherwise.

“With this amendment, in perfect synchrony with the changes introduced by Parliament, AGCOM is once again at the forefront of the European scene in combating online piracy activity,” says AGCOM Commissioner Massimiliano Capitanio .

Nationwide dynamic blocking measures aren’t the only changes heading Italy’s way.

Penalties For Challenging AGCOM’s New Powers

When AGCOM issues blocking instructions to service providers, their details will be passed to the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Court of Rome.

After carrying out AGCOM’s instructions, those providers will be required to send a report “without delay” to the Public Prosecutor’s Office. It must detail “all activities carried out in fulfillment of the aforementioned measures” along with “any existing data or information in their possession that may allow for the identification of the providers of the content disseminated abusively.”

In other words, ISPs will be expected to block pirates and gather intelligence on the way. Failure to comply with the instructions of AGCOM will result in a sanction as laid out in LEGGE 31 luglio 1997, n. 249 (Law 249 of July 31, 1997); an administrative fine of 20 million lira to 500 million lira, or in today’s currency – €10,620 to €265,000.

Those involved in the supply/distribution of infringing streams will now face up to three years in prison and a fine of up to €15,000. That’s just €5,000 higher than the minimum punishment intermediaries risk should they fail to follow blocking instructions. Notably, it’s still €250,000 less than the maximum fine a service provider could face if they fail to block piracy carried out by actual pirates.

Watch Pirate Streams? There’s a Fine For That

Unlike the United States where simply consuming pirated streams probably isn’t illegal, in 2017 the Court of Justice of the European Union confirmed that consuming illicit streams in the EU runs contrary to law .

With new deterrents in place against operators of pirate services and otherwise innocent online service providers, Italy has a new deterrent for people who consume pirated streams. From August 8, 2023, they risk a fine of up to €5,000. At least on paper, that has the potential to become quite interesting.

IPSOS research carried out in Italy over the past few years found that roughly 25% of the adult population consume pirate IPTV streams to some extent during a year.

Italy has a population of around 59 million so even with some aggressive rounding that’s still a few million potential pirates. How evidence of this offense can be obtained and then attributed to an individual is unclear.

Presumably, the intent is to target people who buy IPTV packages, but in any event, the overriding aim is to deter any involvement in illegal streams, no matter where they begin, or where they end.

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

There are thousands of pirate sites on the Internet but only a few will receive a permanent entry in the history books. That includes Sci-Hub .

Founded by Kazakhstani computer programmer Alexandria Elbakyan, the shadow library provides free access to millions of academic publications. As such, it’s an essential tool for less privileged students and researchers around the world.

Tearing Down Paywalls Since 2011

Without Sci-Hub, many academics would be unable to complete their research projects. This all comes at the detriment of the profits of major publishers, but many argue that’s an easy tradeoff to make.

Alexandra knows this from experience. She started Sci-Hub after running into accessibility problems more than a decade ago while studying at a less fortunate university.

“When I was working on my research project, I found out that all research papers I needed for work were paywalled. I was a student in Kazakhstan at the time and our university was not subscribed to anything,” Alexandra told TorrentFreak years ago.

Today, Sci-Hub continues to tear down academic paywalls but that comes at a cost. Sci-Hub has been sued several times and owes millions in damages to major publishers. In addition, Elbakyan also drew the attention of the FBI.

Instead of throwing in the towel, Sci-Hub’s founder continues to defend her ideals. They’re a thorn in the side of major publishers, but on the other side of the debate, Elbakyan reaps praise.

EFF Award

This week, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) announced that Sci-Hub’s founder will receive an award for her accomplishments in advancing access to scientific knowledge.

EFF’s awards are presented to people who have taken a leading role in the fight for freedom and innovation online. The previous winners include Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, Linux creator Linus Torvalds, and whistleblower Chelsea Manning.

According to EFF, Elbakyan deserves the award as her life’s work enables millions of people to access scientific knowledge that would otherwise exist beyond their financial reach.

“Sci-Hub is used by millions of students, researchers, medical professionals, journalists, inventors, and curious people all over the world, many of whom provide feedback saying they are grateful for this access to knowledge.

“Some medical professionals have said Sci-Hub helps save human lives; some students have said they wouldn’t be able to complete their education without Sci-Hub’s help,” EFF adds.

The Real Threat?

EFF also highlights that Elbakyan’s work helps to challenge the current academic publishing system, where researchers are used as unpaid workhorses.

“Through Sci-Hub, Elbakyan has strived to shatter academic publishing’s monopoly-like mechanisms in which publishers charge high prices even though authors of articles in academic journals receive no payment,” EFF writes.

Elbakyan previously said that academic publishers are the real threat to the progress of science as they keep scientific progress and findings behind closed doors, instead of sharing knowledge freely as Sci-Hub does.

In addition to Elbakyan, the digital rights group will also present awards to the Library Freedom Project and the Signal Foundation for their achievements.

‘I Am Sci-Hub’

Sci-Hub’s founder is pleased with EFF’s acknowledgment, although the initial plan to give the award to the Sci-Hub website, rather than her personally, wasn’t well received.

“It was really disgusting to read they ask me to accept their EFF Pioneer award ‘on behalf of Sci-Hub’,” Elbakyan said in response two weeks before the awards were officially announced.

“Why did not they want to give the award to me directly? Sci-Hub is my sole creation; it is not an organization and never had any team. In 1998 they awarded Torvalds, not Linux,” she added.

That commentary apparently made EFF reconsider its plan. The award now goes to Elbakyan directly and it will be officially handed out at the awards ceremony in San Francisco this coming September.

EFF previously recognized that it may be challenging for Sci-Hub’s founder to attend the ceremony in person, noting that there are secure methods of communication available in case she prefers to accept it virtually instead.

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

Sky has fought piracy mechanisms of all kinds over the years. From set-top box modifications to viewing card tampering, blocking, even full PC-based emulation, the pay TV company has seen it all.

Exploits that are relatively easy to pull off and work at scale are considered serious threats. Last month we reported on the sale of Sky encryption keys on platforms including Telegram. That type of thing has been going on for some time, but over the space of a few days, direct URLs to watch Sky content in the UK, Italy, and Germany, were posted online and inevitably began to spread.

Free Decryption Key Extractors

This week a related problem was observed by intelligence and investigations company, Kopjra S.r.l . Working as a Sky anti-piracy partner in Italy, Kopjra sprang into action after spotting software uploaded to GitHub by a user who only signed up this month.

The user account ‘TAJLNsScripts’ was created in early July and currently focuses on video platform-related tools. The first script causing concern at Sky was written in Python and claims to allow users to log in to Now TV via a terminal window, browse the platform’s content, and then obtain decryption keys for both VOD content and live TV.

A second repository named ‘SkyGo-Drm-Solution’ offered a Python script with features broadly in line with the VOD capability of its Now TV-focused namesake. In order to function, the tool requires users to take an extra step using a specific cookie culled from Sky’s platform.

While still a concern for Sky, the extra steps and the question of what to do with the keys once obtained, are likely to put off most people from venturing further. For people with a rudimentary understanding of how these things work, nothing here is particularly difficult either.

The broad underlying concern is that these scripts and others like them exploit a fundamental weakness that a) can’t be easily fixed and b) goes way beyond Sky. It’s a fairly sensitive topic, to put it mildly.

Kopjra’s Aggressively-Worded DMCA Takedown

After identifying itself as representing Sky UK, Kopjra informed GitHub via a DMCA notice that the tools allow for the decryption of Sky content otherwise protected by Widevine DRM.

“This activity is manifestly illicit, and it represents a violation of our Client’s exclusive intellectual property rights (COPYRIGHT) on the Asset, given that our Client has never authorized – neither intends to authorize – any of the Page/s displaying contents concerning the Asset,” the notice reads.

“In consideration of the above, we formally invite you to immediately remove – within 24 hours of receipt of this letter – the above-mentioned Page/s, to disable access to users and cease any further publishing of any content concerning the Asset on the Page/s.”

As the image above shows, the scripts in question were uploaded to GitHub roughly three weeks ago. The first and second repo were both created on July 8, approximately six minutes apart. Both had obvious topic tags and were very easy to find from the beginning.

After being publicly exposed for a considerable time, removing the software was presented as an emergency matter, with Kopjra informing GitHub that anything short of immediate compliance would render the coding platform liable for losses.

“We bring to your attention that, in case of failure to comply with the above requests, you will be deemed directly responsible for the persisting infringement of our Client’s intellectual property rights as well as for the consequent damages (both economic and non-economic) suffered and that can be suffered in the future,” the notice warned.

GitHub Removes Software

The DMCA takedown notice published by GitHub shows that the developer of the software was given an opportunity to make changes to their code, provided with advice on how to submit a counternotice , and directed towards GitHub-supplied legal resources .

These steps are part of GitHub’s commitment to supporting developers following the attempted takedown of youtube-dl in 2021. The commitment doesn’t imply that GitHub endorses a developer’s work, but the company does believe that coders should have the freedom to tinker .

What response was received by GitHub, if any, isn’t detailed in the notice , but the end result was both repositories being disabled along with several forks. The developer’s account was not suspended due to the takedown notice, but it now contains just three repos rather than the original five.

For Sky and its anti-piracy partners, this represents just one of many takedowns filed already this month, mostly hoping to make sites and services much harder to find.

Continuous DMCA Notices

Sky has several anti-piracy partners and they are always kept busy tackling various threats. Takedown notices targeting pirate IPTV services, their sales portals in particular, are sent to Google on a regular basis. The strategy includes making numerous claims in respect of different types of infringement.

For example, notices like these ( 1 , 2 ) claim that infringing links to copyrighted content are provided by the sites in question, but very rarely are any links included in takedown notices. To avoid the notices being rejected, they carry additional claims that the sites display Sky’s logos without permission. Since that’s usually the case and is easily proven, these takedowns can be effective.

Sky isn’t simply a broadcaster, though, it owns content too. That leads to takedown notices like this which target sites that directly host movies and TV shows, or allow them to be streamed via their platforms.

Like many similar companies, Sky has to deal with a persistent threat from piracy apps, usually in the form of Android APK files offered on various sites. They are tackled with notices like this , while platforms offering DRM keys are dealt with in broadly the same way .

Image credit: Pixabay / TheDigitalArtist

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

In 2021, the RIAA secured a major victory in its piracy lawsuit against YouTube-rippers FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com, and their Russian operator Tofig Kurbanov.

A Virginia federal court issued a default judgment in favor of the RIAA, which represented several prominent music companies.

Following this win, the RIAA demanded $83 million in damages for the widespread copyright infringement that allegedly took place through the sites. The request was met with heavy opposition from Mr. Kurbanov, but last year it was granted nonetheless .

The RIAA, which described the legal battle as a landmark case, was happy with the outcome. As it stands, it will act as a deterrent against similar stream-rippers and other potentially infringing sites. However, the case is not over just yet.

$83 Million Appeal

While Mr. Kurbanov previously walked away from the U.S. court battle, he may choose to keep on fighting. In a new filing submitted yesterday, a challenge against the piracy liability ruling and damages award was docketed at the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The appeal doesn’t come as a complete surprise. More than a year ago, Kurbanov’s legal team already signaled their intention to challenge the verdict. A notice of appeal was filed in March 2022, but it took more than a year before the case was formally docketed.

TorrentFreak reached out to the defense’s team for a comment on their plans, but they didn’t immediately reply. Since quite a bit of time has passed, and considering Kurbanov’s previous change of heart regarding U.S. courts, anything could happen.

Questions Remain, Traffic Slides

Last year, defense lawyer Val Gurvits informed us that his client intended to challenge the fact that the sites are being held liable for millions of dollars in damages, without having to present concrete evidence of copyright infringements that allegedly took place in the United States.

“If the record companies can really get multi-million dollar judgments without having to prove a single instance of infringement within the United States, then no one who operates a website is safe,” Gurvits said at the time.

Whether this is still the plan remains unclear. If the operator of the YouTube rippers does decide to proceed with the appeal, an opening brief could be expected later this year, with the RIAA to respond after that.

Meanwhile, the contested YouTube rippers are still online. Their traffic has been decimated, however, in part because the sites voluntarily blocked all traffic from the United States.

When the RIAA filed its lawsuit five years ago, FLVTO.biz had an estimated 94 million visits per month and 2conv.com pulled in around 23 million monthly visits. Today, these visitor numbers have dropped to 3 million and 2 million visits, respectively.

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

Historically, the domain name WHOIS system has been an important tool to track down the operators of pirate sites and services.

While WHOIS data is not always accurate, it is still helpful in holding site operators accountable, at least when the information is available for access.

In recent years, access to domain registration information has often been restricted. This change is in large part the result of EU General Data Protection Regulation ( GDPR ), a privacy law that limits the availability of personal information in public databases.

In response to the law, domain name oversight body ICANN implemented a measure to restrict access to personal WHOIS data for gTLDs, unless explicit permission is granted. This was a welcome privacy upgrade for many domain registrants, but anti-piracy groups were not happy .

.US WHOIS Restrictions

Copyright holders have complained about the stricter privacy rules but were pleased to see that these didn’t apply universally. The .US ccTLD, for example, which falls under the oversight of the United States Department of Commerce’s NTIA , remains publicly accessible.

Public access helps enforcement efforts but also has some drawbacks. Since anyone can access the private details of domain registrants anonymously, the information can be used to spam, phish, or dox people.

To reduce the potential for abuse, NTIA and its contractor GoDaddy are proposing to limit anonymous access to .US registrant data and make information seekers accountable too.

“In response to concerns about the potential for abuse of usTLD registrant data, NTIA is considering a proposal from its Contractor to create an Accountable WHOIS Gateway System to provide public access to usTLD registrant information,” NTIA noted.

“The System would require those seeking access to the usTLD registration data to provide their name, an email address, and to accept the Terms of Service (TOS).”

RIAA Opposes WHOIS Shield

Earlier this year, NTIA asked the public for input on this proposal. As expected, that triggered opposition from various parties including the music industry’s anti-piracy watchdog, RIAA.

In response to the proposal, RIAA points out that EU privacy regulation and proxy registration services for many top-level domains have made it virtually impossible to obtain accurate registrant data for anti-piracy purposes.

The .US TLD is a rare exception, which is also apparent in the abuse numbers. Pirate sites tend to avoid .US domain names, presumably because WHOIS data is publicly available.

“We have seen much less copyright infringement on sites with .us domains than on those in the gTLD space,” RIAA writes.

This statement is backed up by figures showing that copyright infringement through .US domain names is trending down in recent years, while it has increased on .COM domain names.

WHOIS data is not only important to catch pirates, RIAA writes. It can also be helpful to other investigators, including law enforcement agencies, who also deal with online harms.

At the same time, RIAA suggests that the harm faced by registrants is minimal. At least, the organization is not aware of any concrete examples where public .US WHOIS information has caused any problems.

“[W]hile we have heard of anecdotal evidence of harm to registrants generally, we don’t know of any documented, verifiable, widespread, pervasive harm to .us registrants caused by publicly available registrant data.”

Why Change?

NTIA doesn’t propose to make it entirely impossible for rightsholders and other interested parties to obtain WHOIS data. Instead, it wants to hold WHOIS data seekers accountable, by asking them for their information as well.

This shouldn’t prevent RIAA and other rightsholders from accessing WHOIS records, but the RIAA sees no reason to change the status quo.

“Given the steep rise of cyber problems since the WHOIS data for gTLDs was masked, and the challenges such masking has caused to those combatting those problems, we don’t understand why .us would change its current policies.

“Accordingly, the current system of access to usTLD domain name registration data should remain unchanged, and we do not support efforts to create unnecessary gates around registrant data,” RIAA adds.

If NTIA decides to block unlimited and anonymous access to WHOIS data, RIAA notes that copyright holders should be granted free and immediate access. In addition, WHOIS data should be vetted through ‘know-your-customer’ requirements, while corporate domain registrations should remain publicly accessible.

—

A copy of RIAA’s full response to the NTIA’s proposal was published this week and is available here (pdf)

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