To protect copyright holders, YouTube regularly removes, disables, or demonetizes videos that allegedly contain infringing content.

While anyone can send a DMCA notice to the platform, most copyright actions come from the Content ID system that can only be used by a select group of copyright holders.

For many years the number of claims rightsholders made on YouTube was unknown. That changed two years ago when the video platform launched its first-ever transparency report . Since then, the number of claims has steadily continued to rise.

826 Million

YouTube’s latest transparency report reveals that during the second half of last year, rightsholders claimed more than 826 million videos on YouTube. This is the highest figure since YouTube started reporting these figures and a 9% uplift over the same period last year when 759 million videos were flagged.

This increase in claims happened even though fewer copyright holders actively used the Content ID system. Entities utilizing the system dropped from 4,840 in the second half of 2021 to 4,646 during the same period last year.

Applying some basic math to these figures reveals that copyright holders who actively used Content ID claimed over 177,000 videos on average over the six-month period.

Money Machine

While rightsholders are typically unhappy when people use their content without permission, YouTube has managed to reframe this problem as an opportunity. Instead of using the Content ID system to take videos offline, there’s also an option to monetize them instead.

The concept of ‘monetizing’ piracy initially sounded a bit odd but the system has transformed into a healthy revenue stream opportunity. During the most recent reporting period, rightsholders chose to monetize over 90% of all Content ID claims.

This positive take on tackling infringement seems to be quite profitable as well. During 2022, copyright holders were paid around $1.5 billion as a direct result of their Content ID claims. Since the Content ID system was launched several years ago, $9 billion in ‘claimed’ revenue was paid out to copyright holders.

Million Dollar Abuse

The revenue opportunities also come with a downside – scammers. In one recent case, two men set up a company to find and claim unmonetized music. Through a third-party partner with access to the Content ID system, the pair generated over $24 million in revenue from YouTube by falsely claiming ownership.

The abuse didn’t go unnoticed and the repercussions were severe. In 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted the duo and last week the first defendant was sentenced to more than five years in prison .

Intentional abuse schemes of this magnitude are relatively rare for Copyright ID claims. Across YouTube’s broader set of copyright tools, we see that YouTube regularly takes action against abusers.

“We take abuse of our tools seriously — we terminate tens of thousands of accounts each year that attempt to abuse our copyright tools,” the company explains.

In addition to money-driven schemes, copyright takedown abuse can also have a political or competitive angle.

“Sometimes this takes the form of political actors attempting to censor political speech or companies stifling criticism of their products or practices. Other times individuals try to use our copyright processes to bully other creators or to remove videos they see as competing for the same audience.”

99.5% Automated

Aside from intentional abuse, errors can also be triggered by automation. Nearly all Content ID claims (99.5%) are processed automatically through fingerprinting technology. In these cases, potentially-infringing content is flagged by technology with limited human oversight.

Automation saves YouTube and rightsholders a lot of resources but can also be a potential source of abuse and errors. This is one of the reasons why just a small group of verified and responsible rightsholders can join the program.

Despite this hurdle, mistakes happen. YouTube specifically highlights an example where videos of the historic landing of NASA’s Curiosity on Mars were taken down globally. A TV company claimed the public domain footage as their own.

“In Content ID the impact is multiplied due to its automated nature; one bad reference file can impact hundreds or even thousands of videos across the site.

“In one highly publicized instance, a news channel uploaded public domain footage from NASA of a Mars rover and ended up making inappropriate claims against all other news channels and creators using the same footage, even against the NASA channel itself.”

These mistakes are not caused by the automated processes themselves but are triggered when bad reference files are added to the Content ID database.

YouTube notes that on the whole, manual Content ID claims are more than twice as likely to be disputed than automated ones (0.94% vs. 0.43%). Since there are 200 times more automated claims, these still account for the bulk of all disputes.

—-

A copy of YouTube’s latest transparency report, covering the second half of 2022, is available here (pdf)

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

Traditionally, when copyright holders go after pirate sites, their main mission is to shut them down permanently.

This strategy has resulted in the demise of thousands of websites over the past two decades.

In some cases these shutdowns are easy, only requiring a cease and desist order to be delivered to the owner’s home address. In others, disputes can escalate into prolonged legal battles where judges or juries have the final say.

YTS Lawsuits and Settlements

As one of the most iconic piracy brands, YTS.mx has also been targeted in court. In 2019, the popular torrent site and its operator were accused of facilitating mass copyright infringement in multiple U.S. lawsuits, filed by independent movie companies, including Millennium Media and Voltage Pictures.

While lawsuits against torrent sites are not new, these cases stood out due to the manner in which they were resolved. Instead of shutting the site down, the film companies reached settlement agreements with the operator in 2020, which allowed the site to continue operating.

In order to survive, YTS had to hand over some user details, while promising to pay over $1 million in piracy damages, on paper. In addition, the notorious torrent site agreed to remove torrents linking to the movie companies’ content and prevent them from being reuploaded.

This unprecedented deal caused quite the stir when YTS user data was put to work in other lawsuits against individual file sharers and Internet providers. In a very pragmatic sense, the settlement was a great deal for the movie companies. At least, for as long as it lasted.

YTS Uploads ‘Prohibited’ Films

Today, YTS no longer appears restricted by the terms of the agreement. While older Millennium Media and Voltage Pictures titles, such as The Hitman’s Bodyguard and The Expendables, are still not listed on the site, many newer releases are.

A simple search reveals that YTS distributes pirated copies of more recent films, including “Hitman’s Bodyguard’s Wife”, “The Offering”, “The Protege”, “Shut In” and “Last Seen Alive.”

The settlement agreement requires YTS to keep these films off the site, but that didn’t happen here. The filmmakers’ attorney, Kerry Culpepper, informs TorrentFreak that YTS complied with follow-up takedowns in the past, but he adds that recent requests were ineffective.

“It is unfortunate and disappointing that YTS is not complying with the permanent injunction/agreement of the 2020 Hawaii lawsuits requiring it to keep my clients’ movies removed from the website. We will consider the next steps,” Culpepper says.

What these ‘next steps’ are is not clear. In any case, the filmmakers can’t rely on the Hawaii court to enforce the settlement agreement, as the court’s jurisdiction over the matter expired at the end of 2021.

The most likely option appears to be to reinvigorate the legal battle in some way or another. Whether the filmmakers are open to another settlement is doubtful though, as there are some trust issues now.

Update: YTS has removed the films. We asked for a comment and will update this article accordingly if it comes in.

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

Over the past couple of decades, thousands of people have leveraged the masses of pirated content available online to make a few bucks here and there.

Others have thrown caution to the wind and set out in search of the big money. Launching full-blown pirate platforms or platforms that claim to be legitimate (but were actually full-blown pirate platforms), many believed that one day it would either be free drinks at the bar, or many years behind them. Could go either way, you never know.

Today’s pirate entrepreneurs have never had it so easy. Using pre-built sites and content APIs, committing to go full-pirate in the morning can mean running a site the same day. From there on, it’s just a simple case of keeping everything running, dealing with the whims of thousands of users, quashing a moderator mutiny three times a year, and the timeless classic, not getting sued or arrested. Simple.

Yet when all of that is completely under control, someone still comes along and starts issuing DMCA notices to Google, web hosts, and domain registrars. And guess what? Some are making a whole lot of money in the process, working from home, risk-free.

Making a Living: DMCA Freelancing

DMCA notices listed on the Lumen Database are an invaluable source of information when investigating instances of copyright abuse. Companies including Google and Twitter submit notices constantly and the overwhelming majority carry enough useful information.

Some information is redacted for privacy reasons, often when the notice includes the name of a private individual, for example. What stands out here is that there are many questionable notices that have the copyright holder and the submitter’s names redacted, meaning that it becomes extremely difficult to identify who is behind malicious behavior.

When disappearing down the rabbit hole recently, an accidental turn led to the freelancer site Kwork where it’s possible to hire someone to send DMCA notices to have content removed from Google, Bing, and social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook.

Through various means it was possible to link some of the freelancers on Kwork with redacted notices on the Lumen Database, not necessarily dubious notices in every case, but at least the reasons for the redactions became more clear. These freelance takedown agents act in an individual capacity while working for individuals, not companies.

Dozens of listings on Upwork offer similar services and one claiming to have “100% Job Success” immediately caught the eye due to the amount earned on the platform: £100K (US$128,340).

For perspective, the average salary in Pakistan is 81,800 PKR (Pakistani Rupee) per month, or around USD 287 (£223) according to May 2023 figures. To earn £100K, the average Pakistani would need to work for 37 years.

While we have no idea whether the services provided offer value for money, a claim on the listing (“My success rate is 100%”) implies, if not directly states, that online platforms always remove all links submitted by the agent. Multi-national anti-piracy corporations would certainly beg to differ and if deindexing whole websites is possible via Upwork, someone knows something about DMCA notices that nobody else does.

Taking Content Down – Send $20

The listings reveal that a disproportionate number of takedown agents report being based in Pakistan. One listing offers to remove up to 10 links for $20. The concerning thing here is the suggestion that DMCA takedown notices can target copyright-infringing content and also “malicious and defaming” posts.

The reference to becoming the client’s “legal attorney” may also generate confusion; in the unlikely event that does mean a qualified lawyer, hiring one who understands what the DMCA is for might be a better option. The listing also advises that “there is no screening process for this service” which doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.

Sounds Complicated, Better Hire an Expert

Additional alarm is raised by other items in sales pitches. “I have Removed DMCA Copyright Violations of my Clients content, the result was very stunning and effectively removed all the false DMCA claims and counter Claims Notices,” one reads. “And same as if you receive the false DMCA I will submit the counter notice also,” it continues.

One can only imagine what is going on here but there are signs that some of these agents are battling against each other, sending DMCA notices that are potentially wrongful and then being counterclaimed. It appears that counterclaims are thrown around with little respect for the fact that clients are effectively agreeing to be sued in the United States, if it ever came to that.

Copyright Blunders

Implausibly, respect for other people’s copyrights is also called into question. While it’s not really acceptable to use an OnlyFans logo to promote another business, the image below reveals that the ‘DMCA expert’ in question may have ripped off the logo owned by DMCA.com .

Criticism aside, there are listings on both sites that suggest some amateur DMCA agents might really know what they’re doing and could be of help to other self-employed people, especially those who work OnlyFans.

Interestingly, the image below from Twitter suggests that OnlyFans users can have content removed for copyright infringement too. We haven’t redacted anything here because the Kwork agent mentioned working for the client on his page and the part we did remove at the top was far more revealing. The important part is the withheld tweet.

The assumption here is that the OnlyFans user breached someone’s copyright and the tweet was removed. The reality is that she hired someone from Kwork, an apparent specialist in both DMCA notices and counternotices, and they took it down in error and then failed to correct their blunder.

The important lesson here is that there’s decent money to be made taking down content, and it doesn’t matter how many mistakes get made, or even if the law is abused, nobody is ever held to account. No qualifications necessary and no screening. Essential requirements? $20 should do it.

Image credit: pixabay/ geralt

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

Dozens of times each year, global anti-piracy coalition Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment files DMCA subpoena applications at a court in California.

Once obtained, these are served on service providers, mostly Cloudflare, requesting personal information on pirate site operators. While the quality of supplied information varies, the number of applications suggests that the world’s largest entertainment companies do indeed obtain valuable intelligence from the process.

Under the banner of Hollywood’s MPA, ACE returned to court again this week, seeking information on a number of platforms, mostly dealing in movies and TV shows. The presence of yet more anime piracy platforms is probably a sign of things to come, with ACE members Disney and Paramount gaining a firmer foothold in the anime market.

Anime Sites in the Crosshairs

New Target: Animedao.to
Recent Traffic: Apr 19.1m / May 18.1m / June 16.9m

When sites like Zoro.to (which rebranded to Animewatch.to this week due to copyright issues) receive more than 200 million visits per month, it’s tempting to describe sites with tens of millions as ‘small’. We’ll refrain from doing that, especially when yearly visits to Animedao.to exceed the quarter-billion mark.

While the site’s traffic is in a slight decline, Animedao remains popular, especially in the United States. More than a third of the platform’s overall traffic hails from the U.S., the Philippines, and the United Kingdom.

Animedao.to is just one of many hundreds of sites that exist through the use of a site template. These sites are easy to identify using a number of methods but one of the most straightforward is a Google search for the term “anime” and the text of the standard disclaimer that appears at the bottom of most homepages.

In case anyone still believes that pirate site disclaimers are kryptonite to entertainment industry attorneys, they aren’t. The remaining pair of sites on the ACE list, along with summary details, are as follows:

New Target: animekaizoku.com
Recent Traffic: Apr 837k / May 637k / June 599k
Most Popular: India, Philippines, Japan

New Target: Animet.site
Recent Traffic: Apr 2.3k / May 2.2k / June 3.3k
Feature: Members Only, must sign in with Google/Discord account
Fun fact: Domain records state: “DNS points to prohibited IP stream server”

Latin American Targets

Working with local anti-piracy groups, ACE continues to take a keen interest in sites popular in Brazil and neighboring countries. Legal action to obtain site operators’ identities may take place in the United States, but any information obtained has the potential to be useful anywhere.

New Target: baixarseriesmp4.eu (baixar is ‘download’ in Portuguese)
Content: Movies, TV Shows, Anime
Recent Traffic: Apr 0k / May 1.4m / June 4m

Around 80% of Baixarseriesmp4’s traffic comes from Brazil, with Portugal following in a distant second place. The SimilarWeb figures listed above show the site’s traffic on a rapid upwards trend, which is probably one of the reasons ACE wants to take action before things get out of hand.

With that in mind, how does a site grow from nothing to four million visits in three months? The answer is simple: they don’t start from nothing.

Baixarseriesmp4.eu is a domain-hopping site that already had traction. Its current .eu domain is just the latest in use after having burned through baixarseriesmp4.xyz, .club, and .top. A message on those domains warns that they will be “decommissioned soon.”

It’s possible that ISPs may have blocked Baixarseries at some point. The main page provides instructions on how to unblock the platform by changing DNS settings in popular browsers.

New Target: 2now.tv
Content: Movies, TV Shows
Recent Traffic: Apr 13k / May 35k / June 233k

The request for information relating to 2now.tv is interesting. This is a new platform that did indeed launch from a standing start; information received by TorrentFreak suggests that 2now.tv is intended to be the English language version of Latin American streaming giant, Cuevana.

We haven’t been able to confirm that claim but attempts to boost the site’s traffic are very evident on social media. Around 75% of the site’s traffic (up 550% in the United States compared to the previous month) comes from social media referrals, 92% of that from links on Reddit.

There’s even a 2now.tv promotional video floating around, but since it uses clips from Hollywood movies – to promote piracy of Hollywood movies – we won’t link to it here.

The DMCA subpoena application can be found here ( pdf )

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

For a country that regularly claims to be at war with the United States, Russian lawmakers appear to have plenty of time to discuss how its citizens will continue to be entertained by mostly U.S. content.

Over the last 18 months, various ideas and proposals have leaned toward limiting or even nullifying Western entertainment companies’ intellectual property rights in response to their withdrawal from the Russian market. Until more recently, these obviously damaging proposals were met with relatively mild cautionary language, even from traditionally vocal anti-piracy groups.

Whether the response to a bill submitted to the State Duma earlier this year represents changing times is unclear, but Russian rightsholders now insist that allowing everyone to pirate Western content will end up damaging business in Russia.

Federal Law No. 46-FZ

The bill submitted in April seeks amendments to the provisions of Federal Law No. 46-FZ of March 8, 2022.

Federal Law No. 46-FZ (excerpt/translated)

In respect of intellectual property, the law currently references the application of the “international principle” of exhaustion of rights. Using content that has been legally put into circulation in any other country of the world is not an infringement of exclusive rights, the law continues, adding that parallel importation of goods can be carried out without authorization from the rightsholder.

“This tool is used by most states in the world to prevent anti-competitive practices and abuses of market position by right holders,” the text concludes ( pdf ) .

Bill Demands More Than Parallel Imports

When Western companies decided to stop doing business with Russia in response to its invasion of Ukraine, that amounted to an abuse of their position, Russia argues. As a result, Russia no longer feels bound by licensing restrictions and will source the same content from elsewhere, whenever that’s required.

The bill submitted in April seeks significant amendments to Law No. 46-FZ that would allow Western content with exclusive foreign rights to be translated, reproduced/copied and publicly distributed with zero permission needed from the rightsholders.

The only remotely positive aspect is that any use of those works would need to be reported to a Russian collection society with the authority to calculate how much is owed, collect the funds, and then distribute an unknown percentage of those funds to rightsholders. By allowing the ‘buyer’ of content to set the terms and conditions of sale and eliminating negotiations on price, the proposal turns business norms upside down.

TV Giants and Legal Streaming Platforms Unite

Opposition to the bill inside Russia now has the support of TV companies and legal streaming platforms. A letter sent by the powerful industry group Media Communications Union, which represents the rights of companies including Gazprom Media, Channel One, and Rostelecom, informed the head of the State Duma Committee on Economic Policy of their concerns.

As reported by Kommersant , the letter warns that the widespread use of copyrighted works without proper authorization “violates the interests of specialized market participants” and may lead to the “termination of their activities.”

“It also creates the risk of using this mechanism to legalize and popularize pirated resources, which will negatively affect domestic producers and owners of exclusive rights to content,” the letter adds.

Other Options, All Bad

Other proposals reported recently include Russia unblocking previously blocked pirate sites, providing they don’t offer content shown legally by local online streaming platforms or available to view in cinemas.

Amendments to the Civil Code adopted in the first reading by the State Duma last month would allow multiple violations of multiple rightsholders’ rights to be considered as one violation, if they were committed all at once or over a short period of time, using one or multiple methods. Local rightsholders are reportedly unhappy with the plan, according to a Kommersant source.

“The concept of a single infringement will greatly simplify the lives of pirates,” the source said . “For example, a pirate has made a website and posted a thousand films, books and music from different rights holders. There is a single economic goal here – to make money from advertising on the site.”

There are also fears that the amendments could lead to minimal damages awards of just 100,000 rubles ($1,100)

Media Communications Union Makes Suggestions

The members of the Media Communications Union have some proposals relating to Western content. It appears that while everyone pirating is a bad idea, more limited use centered around a limited number of companies may be acceptable.

In broad terms, the industry group believes that Russian companies that previously concluded licensing agreements with foreign copyright holders should be given the right to decide whether that content is made available or not.

“That is, as long as the film is on at least one platform, it is forbidden to ‘pirate’ it,” the insider clarified.

The media companies also propose that access to Western content should not be universal; companies that had licensing agreements in force on February 24, 2022, should receive priority consideration.

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

Every day, millions of people from all over the world submit posts, comments, and other content to Reddit.

Most discussions are relatively harmless but, every now and then, users unwittingly incriminate themselves, totally unaware of the potential ramifications their writings can have offline.

When something’s clearly wrong, the authorities can take action. Last year, governments and law enforcement sent more than 1,000 information requests to Reddit, seeking user details. In addition, Reddit was served with 277 search warrants and 582 subpoenas targeted at users of the platform.

Reddit complies with most of these information requests, but not all. Earlier this year the company objected when a group of filmmakers requested the personal details of several users as part of an ongoing lawsuit against Internet provider RCN.

Filmmakers vs. Reddit

The filmmakers turned to Reddit after they found public comments that could help their case. As part of the RCN lawsuit, they identified several potentially relevant threads and requested a DMCA subpoena, ordering 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 could obtain the identities of the commenters first.

Reddit was unhappy with the subpoena, characterizing it as overbroad and more akin to a fishing expedition than regular evidence gathering. Reddit only handed over the details of one user whose comment mentioned RCN, denying other ‘less relevant’ ones, while citing the users’ First Amendment right to anonymous speech.

The court eventually agreed with this defense, concluding that Redditors’ First Amendment right to anonymous speech outweighs the interest of rightsholders. 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 went to court again over a similar request. This time the request is part of their piracy liability lawsuit against Internet provider Grande , and singles out a new group of Redditors.

Reddit refused to hand over the information directly which prompted another motion to compel that, once again, landed on Judge Beeler’s desk. According to the filmmakers, they have no other options to secure the evidence which, among other things, includes comments on Grande’s handling of copyright notices.

The filmmakers stated that they already requested and received the personal details of 118 frequently pirating subscribers from Grande. However, contacting these people didn’t yield the desired results. Facing a deadline, they chose to go after the Reddit users instead.

Reddit Objects

In a replay of moves, Reddit has just responded in court, pointing out that their users’ right to anonymous speech should be protected. The company argues that the filmmakers still fail to make a convincing argument. As in the earlier case, Reddit users are not an “irreplaceable source” of evidence.

“Weeks ago, this Court denied a nearly identical motion by these same Plaintiffs,” Reddit writes in its opposition brief.

[R]ather than returning with better facts capable of meeting the applicable First Amendment standard, Plaintiffs here offer worse facts–expressly acknowledging that they have no need to identify these Reddit users at all.”

The filmmakers seek information to show that Grande failed to properly implement a repeat infringer policy and that this failure acted as a draw to potential subscribers. In the earlier RCN case, Reddit and the court noted that the rightsholders could obtain this information directly from RCN subscribers.

This is also the case in the Grande lawsuit, Reddit argues. In fact, the company notes that the filmmakers’ statements to the court show that this is possible.

“[U]nlike in RCN, the Plaintiffs here have already successfully done exactly what Reddit suggested Plaintiffs do there. Plaintiffs have already obtained from Grande identifying information for 118 of Grande’s ‘top 125 pirating IP addresses’.

“That concession dooms the Motion; Plaintiffs cannot possibly establish that unmasking these six Reddit users is the only way for Plaintiffs to generate evidence necessary for their claims when they have already succeeded in pursuing an alternative and better way,” Reddit adds.

In their motion to compel, the filmmakers said that they already contacted some Grande subscribers, which didn’t result in the desired information. However, these subscribers were not subpoenaed, which is a step the filmmakers could take before going after Redditors.

“While Plaintiffs claim to have ‘been sending letters to most of the subscribers of the 118 IP addresses,’ Plaintiffs conspicuously fail to state that they have subpoenaed those subscribers,” Reddit writes in a footnote.

Potential Defendant?

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

This comment could, in theory, provide evidence for a direct copyright infringement lawsuit. However, Reddit believes that without arguing a proper claim against the defendant, this user should not be unmasked either.

“Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a prima facie case of copyright infringement against xBROKEx based on their mention of ‘the expendables’ over twelve years ago when the statute of limitations for copyright infringement is three years,” Reddit notes.

All in all, Reddit believes that the filmmakers have an even worse case this time around so the company asks Judge Beeler to protect anonymous speech as it did before.

—

A copy of Reddit’s opposition brief in response to the filmmakers’ motion to compel is available here (pdf)

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

For millions of people around the world, subtitles are the only way to enjoy media in foreign languages. For the deaf and hard of hearing, they are absolutely essential.

Nowadays, most large streaming platforms and broadcasters are aware of the importance of offering a range of subtitle options to their viewers.

On pirate sites, the situation is no different. There’s a decades-long tradition of fansubbing which sees volunteers work together to supply homebrew subtitles to the masses. In many cases, these volunteers beat official channels, especially for non-mainstream content.

There are licensed and official sources for subtitles, but every now and then, we see fan-made subtitles appear on legal platforms. This is exactly what happened a few days ago, in a rare encounter between two of the largest cinephile platforms.

TCM Meets Karagarga

As part of its programming, Turner Classic Movies ( TCM ) recently broadcast the 1970 Spanish drama film “El Jardín de las Delicias,” also known as “The Garden of Delights” in English. The film is widely regarded as a top classic, which TCM viewers expect to see on the “ national treasure “.

What viewers didn’t expect to see, however, were ‘pirated’ subtitles and a reference to a BitTorrent tracker during the credits roll.

“Subtitles: Supersoft and Scalisto for KG,” an inserted subtitles credits line reads, as spotted by movie archivist ‘Jon’ on Twitter.

To the average viewer, this might not ring any bells. However, those in the know immediately recognize these as fansubs. Quite interesting ones too, considering the “KG” reference.

Invaluable Film Archive

KG stands for Karagarga , an illustrious BitTorrent tracker that’s been around for more than 18 years. Becoming a member of the private community isn’t easy but those inside gain access to a wealth of film obscurities.

The site focuses on archiving rare classic and cult movies, as well as other film-related content. Blockbusters and other popular Hollywood releases can’t be found on the site as uploading them is strictly forbidden.

This policy has helped the tracker to stay off the radar, as far as that’s possible. This allowed the community of tens of thousands of film fans to build an irreplaceable archive of the world cinema. This isn’t an exaggeration, the site has unique copies of films that are simply not available elsewhere.

While the tracker operates without permission from rightsholders, filmmakers, cinema researchers, and cinephiles have recognized the important role it plays to safeguard film history. Or as the National Post put it a few years ago;

“Movies of unflagging historical merit are otherwise lost to changes in technology and time every year: film prints are damaged or lost, musty VHS tapes aren’t upgraded, DVDs fall out of print without reissue, back catalogs never make the transition to digital.

“But should even a single copy of the film exist, however tenuously, it can survive on Karagarga: one person uploads a rarity and dozens more continue to share.”

Source?

The subtitles that appeared on Turner Classic Movies were made for a Karagarga release, too but weren’t necessarily sourced through the site. The fansubs may be available through other subtitle repositories as well.

TorrentFreak contacted TCM to find out if the company has any idea how the subtitles ended up on the official broadcast, but the company didn’t immediately reply (see update below). The problem may lie with a third party, as the Criterion streaming service reportedly shows the same subtitles.

The source and whatever reason these subtitles appeared on the official TCM broadcast is irrelevant. The true cinephiles will appreciate the mention.

Of course, this is not the first time that we have seen ‘pirated’ subtitles appear on legitimate platforms. Sky, for example, displayed unofficial subs on a Chernobyl episode and Netflix also had similar issues on several occasions in the past.

Update: A TCM spokesperson informed us that, according to Janus Films, the subtitles were supplied by the worldwide rights holder, which is the Spanish distributer Video Mercury.

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

In a lawsuit, filed in the U.S. early January 2022, videogame giant Activision targeted German companies EngineOwning UG and CMN Holdings S.A, plus various individuals connected with their operation.

Running along similar lines as several other lawsuits filed by competitor Bungie, Activision claimed that the defendants trafficked in circumvention devices, in violation of the DMCA. The company aimed to hold the alleged cheat makers to account while sending a deterrent message to others considering the same conduct.

For more than a year, the EngineOwning defendants and their United States-based attorneys put up quite a fight. Characterizing the lawsuit as a battle between a $50 billion dollar company and mostly overseas defendants with limited resources to fight back, the defendants argued that being dragged all the way to the United States would be unfair, not to mention unnecessary; two of them are already being sued by Activision in a German case, they claimed.

These complaints appeared to have little effect on Activision. In February 2023, two of the defendants – Ignacio Gayduchenko ( 1 ) and Manuel Santiago ( 2 ) – broke ranks and settled with the plaintiffs for $2m and $1m, respectively. Court documents suggest that money wasn’t the first thing to be handed over.

Motion to Dismiss

This January some of the defendants (Valentin Rick, Alex Kleeman, Bennet Huch, Leon Frisch, Leon Schlender, Leonard Bugla, Marc-Alexander Richts, Pascal Claβen, Remo Löffler) filed a lengthy motion to dismiss in response to Activision’s amended complaint which had added new claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and two further counts of racketeering (RICO).

In brief, the German defendants predicted the lawsuit would face difficulties. Evidentiary problems and the physical attendance of the defendants at a trial in California, for example. There was also the question of whether unwilling witnesses could even be compelled to travel. Beyond that, it might even prove difficult to enforce any judgment, they added.

Activision Pulls No Punches

Activision’s response was robust. The “disingenuous” representations of the defendants to avoid appearing in a U.S. court failed to take into account their “hugely profitable online business” which had generated millions of dollars in revenue from 400,000 mostly U.S.-based customers, at Activision’s expense. But more was to follow.

With help from two former EngineOwning participants, Activision had gained access to internal and private correspondence in which the defendants “routinely trade detailed instructions on how best to illegally launder” their shared profits, “engage in fraudulent tax-dodging schemes” and “concoct a story that EngineOwning had been sold to unknown buyers in 2018.

As for the objections against traveling to the United States, the defendants shouldn’t have profited from illegal activities there, Activision informed the court. And besides, traveling hadn’t been a problem in the past.

“Defendant Rick used [EngineOwning] profits to fund far more substantial international travel costs than those contemplated in his declaration, including rental of a ‘presidential suite in a hotel in Zurich’ for several weeks,” the company added.

In January 2022, not long after Activision filed its lawsuit, the company’s legal team at Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp claimed that the defendants had trolled and harassed them online, including making Steam groups called ‘suck my d***, Activision’ and using the initials of the law firm, ‘MSK Crime’.

That was always likely to act as a motivator, even over a year later.

“Elsewhere, Defendant [Marc-Alexander Richts] sneeringly ponders whether it is better to spend [EngineOwning] earnings on ‘a random lawyer in the US’ or ’10k cocaine,’ before he admits the real reason he would like to avoid U.S. travel. He simply does not ‘plan visiting (sic) that shithole country’.”

Claims that Activision is already suing the defendants in Germany along broadly the same lines were also dismissed.

“The actual complaint asserts wholly different claims under German law, by a different entity. The German lawsuit is focused on the European market, does not address U.S. distribution or damages, does not assert claims for trafficking in circumvention technology, does not include most of the defendants in this action, and will not resolve the issues presented here,” the company informed the court ( pdf ) .

Can’t Take Attorneys’ Calls Anymore

The Court subsequently issued an order denying in part and granting in part the motion to dismiss filed by defendants Rick, Bugla, Frisch, Richts, Kleeman, Schlender, Huch, Classen, Loffler, and EngineOwning UG (‘foreign defendants’). Activision was given the opportunity to file a second amended complaint, which it did not. After agreement was reached on a series of extensions, the defendants were given time to file their answer to the first amended complaint.

In the wake of several lengthy filings ( pdf ) and a lawsuit that now names more than 25 defendants ( pdf ) plus a company in Belize, Activision has been serving defendants in Europe under the Hague Convention ( pdf ) . In the background, however, the relationship between the ‘foreign defendants’ and their U.S. attorneys appears to have collapsed.

Court records describe a “breakdown in communications.” Due to the difference in time zones, contact between the parties had taken place over email and text messages. That had worked for well over a year, until the Court allowed the lawsuit to continue.

“Despite the Firm’s efforts in attempting to communicate with the Foreign Defendants on more than a dozen occasions, including reaching out to Markus Kompa, EngineOwning’s and Mr. Rick’s attorney in the German litigation, this breakdown in communication has not been resolved,” the defendants’ attorneys informed the Court.

Not All Defendants Maintain Silence

The law firm advised the defendants by email, text message, and letter, that they intended to withdraw, and because there was no response, the company concluded that meant there would be no opposition ( 1 , 2 ) .

The defendants were advised to inform the Court if they have retained new counsel and file a status report by June 2023. Since EngineOwning cannot proceed pro se, failure to appoint new counsel would result in an entry of default on the first amended complaint.

The Court extended the deadline to file an answer until July 17, 2023, but for up to four of the defendants, the end of this dispute may come a little sooner.

In a letter to the Court dated July 4, Marc-Alexander Richts confirmed he would be defending himself moving forward ( pdf ) . However, a letter dated late June reveals that new levels of cooperation may be the way forward.

In the meantime, it appears to be business as usual for EngineOwning.

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

Over the past several years, adult entertainment company Strike 3 Holdings has filed thousands of cases in U.S. federal courts.

The company, known for its Blacked, Tushy, and Vixen brands, targets people whose Internet connections were allegedly used to download and share copyright-infringing content via BitTorrent.

Track, Sue and Settle

These efforts, often referred to as so-called ‘copyright-trolling’, are pretty straightforward. Copyright holders track down a ‘pirating’ IP-address and then request a subpoena from the court, compelling ISPs to hand over the associated customer data.

Many of these lawsuits result in private settlements, which can be rather lucrative. With minimal effort, rightsholders can rake in hundreds or thousands of dollars per defendant.

Other rightsholders have deployed similar strategies over the years but Strike 3 is the only major player still involved today. That doesn’t mean that the company is scaling down its business, quite the opposite in fact.

1,660 Lawsuits in 2023

Strike 3 has increased its enforcement efforts in 2023. Looking at the number of new lawsuits filed in the first six months of the year, we see that 1,660 complaints have been filed across various federal courts in the United States.

This figure is a 57% increase compared to the first half of 2022, suggesting that the adult company continues to increase its productivity. At the current rate, it will break the record number of piracy cases it filed last year.

With this level of workload, it’s no surprise that most cases are resolved relatively swiftly. Of all lawsuits filed in the first half of the year, more than a third have already been closed. This typically happens when the parties reach an out-of-court settlement.

Strike 3 can also drop a complaint for other reasons and occasionally it obtains a default judgment due to a lack of response from a defendant. Rarely ever, do we see one of these cases go to trial.

A Trial is Coming

While rare, there is currently a trial in preparation at the Middle District of Florida. This proceeding is scheduled to start later this month and both Strike 3 and the accused pirate will get four days to present their arguments.

In the leadup to this legal battle, Strike 3 asked the court to ban the term “copyright troll” at trial. The company argued that this language is “derogatory” and “prejudicial” but Judge District Court Judge Mary Scriven denied the request .

The trial itself won’t be about semantics. Among other things, the defense seems intent on attacking Strike 3’s evidence-gathering technology, while the adult company will counter by pointing out that the defendant destroyed important evidence on his computer.

Whether the trial will keep Strike 3 busy enough to prevent a new piracy case record has yet to be seen. To reach this milestone, the company ‘only’ has to file 1,129 complaints in the second half of the year.

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