Copyright holders send out millions of takedown notices a day, hoping to remove pirated content or make it harder to find.

The efficacy of the DMCA takedown process is open for debate, but it certainly doesn’t help when companies flag legal websites as copyright-infringing.

It is particularly ironic when these mistakenly targeted sites are supposed to help the public find their way to the right streaming service. This is exactly what happened recently.

Netflix and Amazon Target Reelgood

Anti-piracy company Marketly, which handles DMCA takedown requests for many reputable rightsholders, repeatedly targeted URLs from the streaming search engine Reelgood . This Webby-award-winning service has nothing to do with piracy. Instead, it helps people to find sources to stream movies and series online legally.

Apparently, this rather important nuance wasn’t picked up by the takedown software. As a result, several Reelgood pages have been removed from Google’s search results.

One of the notices in question was sent in on behalf of Netflix. It lists a few hundred URLs that allegedly point to pirated copies of titles such as DAHMER, Cable Girls, Cursed, and Bridgerton.

In most cases the links indeed point to problematic sites but Reelgood is also thrown into the mix. Not just that; Google has also removed this page from its search results.

Another DMCA notice , sent by the same takedown outfit, aims to protect Amazon content. This includes URLs that point to pirated copies of Clarkson’s Farm, Britannia, and Bosch: Legacy. Again, Reelgood was erroneously included and removed from Google search.

Looking at Google’s transparency report we see that Amazon and Netflix are not alone. Reelgood has been targeted repeatedly over the years. In some cases, Google decided not to take action in response but in the aforementioned cases, both URLs were removed.

Counterproductive

We’re aware of the fact that these are cherry-picked mistakes we’re reporting here. The overwhelming majority of all the links reported to Google indeed point to infringing content. However, that doesn’t mean that it’s not preventable.

There are just a few major legal search engines such as Reelgood on the web. How hard can it be to add these URLs to a whitelist when it’s your job to find and report pirated URLs?

Right now, these takedowns have the opposite effect. By removing one of the few legal gateways from search results, a spot opens up for a scam-laden pirate site to take its place. That’s not real good.

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

Rightsholders consider piracy of live TV channels as one of the most serious threats to their business.

Subscription channels often end up in IPTV subscription packages, sold to the public at a fraction of the cost after being obtained by pirates using both legal and illegal means. In some cases streams are obtained directly from broadcasters’ official source servers, something that is surprisingly common and, with the right tools, not especially difficult either.

Early this week, TorrentFreak was contacted by an anonymous source who explained how, in their words, “one of the biggest broadcasters in Europe (and in the world) completely ignores how people can watch all of its live channels (in the UK, Germany and Italy) without even having an account.”

Telegram Groups Selling NOW TV Decryption Keys

NOW TV is a subscription OTT TV service operated by Sky Group. Launched in the UK back in 2012, NOW TV is also available elsewhere in Europe, including Italy and Germany. In January 2023, a researcher by the name ‘Mark K’ says he came across Telegram groups offering to sell decryption keys granting free access to the NOW TV service.

This piqued the researcher’s interest since Microsoft’s PlayReady DRM protects NOW TV streams in Italy and Germany.

“[T]here was absolutely no interest for me in buying the mentioned decryption keys just to test them, plus I didn’t know if there was a sort of scam going on. But since I am a security enthusiast, I really wanted to know what happened behind a possible PlayReady leakage, so I decided to have a chat with the owner of the channel with the interest of getting technical details,” the researcher explained.

“I tried to question how the keys were getting grabbed – if PlayReady was proven to be broken. He didn’t want to tell me any detail regarding this matter, he just wanted to hard-sell the decryption keys making me a few offers; that until as a last chance, he provided me a URL, a key identifier, and a decryption key for an Italian channel: Sky Sport 24.”

The researcher said he tested the key, and it worked. Further research led to other sellers offering decryption keys for Sky services not only in Italy, but also Germany and the UK. “So basically all the Sky OTT packages available, for not more than $2000,” the researcher added.

Researcher Says He Quickly Warned Sky

‘Mark K’ claims to have taken a number of steps to warn Sky of the security breach. In the first instance, he says he reached out to a Sky developer on LinkedIn back in January.

After receiving no immediate response, the researcher began posting issues on BSkyB GitHub repos and, via a Twitter account, contacted Sky developers. (edited for clarity/brevity)

“The day after this, I finally got a response. I got followed by an account named ‘Sky Anti-Piracy Intel’ (a freshly made one), which then afterward tweeted me saying to get onto DM to have a talk. Since the account was fresh, I was kind of skeptical in giving this information to a random. But then they confirmed to legitly be a division of Sky taking care of intelligence information regarding anti-piracy.”

The researcher said that Sky’s immediate request was for him to remove the information he’d posted to GitHub, information he claims to have posted for the purposes of attracting Sky’s attention. He says he immediately complied.

After removing the information in question, an email from Sky thanked ‘Mark K’ for responding and advised that the information needed to be referred to the relevant departments. “Please be patient with us and we will get back to you shortly,” an email received from ContentProtection@sky[dot]uk reads.

In a follow-up email dated January 27, the ‘Sky Anti-Piracy Intel Team’ said, “We appreciate the removal Of the posts regarding the matter and hope you have a good weekend. We Will be in touch soon.”

More Contact With Sky

In another email supplied by the researcher, this time dated February 23, roughly a month after the initial communications with Sky, ‘Mark K’ appears to have offered more information to the broadcaster.

“All Sky Go platforms using Widevine are compromised, there are panels as well accessible for free around the internet setting up the streams. I’d like to mention again that I am available for consulting. I didn’t [receive any response] from you since my last report. So unless you guys are interested in getting updated on the matter, I won’t message you anymore,” the email reads. (edited for clarity/brevity)

“Thank you for your intelligence,” Sky’s response reads. “We’re unable to take you on as a consultant at this time however if the circumstances change, we will reach out to you.”

‘Mark K’ says that Sky misunderstood his offer to work for Sky as a consultant; in an email dated March 14, he informed the company that he didn’t want to be hired or get paid. He also informed Sky that when he carried out checks on March 13, none of the exposed decryption keys had been changed.

Mark K Appears to Run Out of Patience

In a follow-up email dated March 27, sent to a new correspondence address following a request from Sky, ‘Mark K’ provided more information and aired his frustrations.

“As I’ve warned you around 2 months ago, situation now is completely out of control. Looks like you’re not caring at all in solving your piracy issues. Both satellite and NOW streaming platform of every country are broken and so far you haven’t changed the decryption keys, makes me wonder in what way you’re fighting piracy as you advertise,” he wrote.

“This will be my last email, if in future I ever see you moving a finger to fix current issues then perhaps (if I have other information) I will update you.”

This week the data Sky wanted to keep out of the public eye appeared very publicly on GitHub, along with clickable links that claimed to allow NOW TV channels to be viewed without a subscription, using only Microsoft Edge and a third-party website.

Within hours the information was removed from GitHub. As far as we can see, the removal wasn’t actioned in response to a regular DMCA notice, but that may become more clear in the hours to come.

TorrentFreak contacted Sky’s anti-piracy team and received a response from the company’s communications team. Sky confirmed the links and encryption keys had been removed from GitHub but declined to comment any further on the emails, the researcher, or the alleged security holes.

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

Legal video streaming services such as Amazon, Disney, and Netflix are booming. At the same time, there’s a flourishing dark market of pirate streaming tools.

These unauthorized alternatives increasingly use slick designs and easy-to-use apps to appeal to a broad audience. And unlike the legal options, they offer all popular titles under the same roof, without charging a penny.

Cloudstream is one of the apps that made its mark in recent years. The Android-based software can aggregate pirated content from several third-party streaming sources and is fully customizable through open-source extensions.

This hasn’t gone unnoticed by rightsholders. Sky UK targeted the software last year, and a few months ago, Hollywood’s Motion Picture Association (MPA) took action against the app.

MPA Targets Cloudstream

The MPA represents the major Hollywood studios and Netflix, and the weight of these massive corporations had the required effect. Following a takedown notice in March, Cloudstream developer “Lag” took the Cloudstream.cf website and some code offline voluntarily.

“Having the absolute worst anti-piracy coalition on our asses is not preferable. They will undoubtedly fuck us legally if they have to. Think what you want but I do not want all of Hollywood after me because of some hobby project,” Lag wrote.

In addition to the website, MPA’s initial notice also listed various files from third-party Cloudstream code repositories, most of which related to extensions. These files were taken offline by GitHub but the repositories all stayed online.

A screenshot from the main repository shows that the bare app code doesn’t include any extensions. This means that by default, it can’t be used to stream pirated content. This is likely why the repository is still on GitHub today and actively being developed.

MPA Fires Another Round

The MPA hasn’t completely forgotten about Cloudstream though. This week, it sent another takedown notice to GitHub asking the developer platform to take down two code repositories, in their entirety.

“We are writing to notify you of, and request your assistance in addressing, the extensive copyright infringement of motion pictures and television shows that is occurring by virtue of the operation of the APK software, CloudStream.

“[T]he Repository hosts and offers for download the APK, which in turn is used to engage in massive infringement of copyrighted motion pictures and television shows,” MPA adds in its notice.

The reported “CloudStream-2” repositories, including one from developer “Lag”, have been removed by GitHub. People who try to access the respective URLs will see a “ Repository unavailable due to DMCA takedown ” notice instead.

The Extension Escape

Interestingly, the CloudStream-2 code is far from new. It’s an older release that has been on GitHub for several years and was no longer actively supported. Unlike the newer versions, it didn’t rely on extensions, which means that it likely still worked as a pirate streaming app out of the box.

Also, the repository included screenshots that displayed how the APK could be used to stream pirated content. This likely didn’t work in their favor either.

The difference between the ‘fully-loaded’ and ‘bare’ versions of Cloudstream is worth highlighting. As mentioned earlier, MPA’s earlier takedown notice targeted extension files, not the entire Cloudstream repository.

We don’t want to draw strong conclusions based on these actions, but the MPA appears willing to leave the extension-based app untouched on GitHub for a reason. At least for now; there are certainly no guarantees that this won’t change in the future.

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

In November 2018, DISH Network filed a copyright complaint against Jadoo TV, a distributor of self-branded set-top IPTV boxes and later various software apps. DISH also sued Jadoo TV CEO, Sajid Sohail.

The complaint described Jadoo TV’s operation as a “wide-ranging, deliberate, multi-year effort” to distribute the plaintiffs’ exclusively-licensed TV channels without authorization. Alleging violations of 17 U.S.C. Section 501 , DISH filed claims for direct, contributory, and vicarious infringement.

DISH took the position that Sohail could be held personally liable because he authorized, directed, or participated in Jadoo TV’s copyright-infringing activities.

In their answer filed in February 2019, Jadoo TV and Sohail denied the allegations, and in July 2020, DISH filed an amended complaint. A month later, Sohail filed his answer and a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Jadoo TV’s CEO insisted that DISH could not hold him personally liable, but in September 2020, the court found that allegations in the amended complaint raised a “plausible inference” that Sohail “authorized, directed, or participated in the alleged infringement” so denied his motion to dismiss.

Motions for Summary Judgment

Four-and-a-half years after filing its original complaint, on March 13, 2023, DISH filed a motion for summary judgment. On the same day, Sohail also filed a motion for summary judgment. An order handed down this week by District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer granted DISH’s motion and denied Sohail’s.

In respect of direct infringement, the court found that there is “no genuine dispute that DISH owned the copyrighted material, that Defendants violated DISH’s exclusive right, that Defendants acted with volition, and that Sohail was personally liable as Jadoo’s director.”

On the contributory infringement front, Jadoo TV fared no better.

“There is no genuine dispute that Jadoo knew about the infringement and could have implemented several simple measures to prevent it,” the order finding in favor of DISH reads. “Accordingly, Jadoo materially contributed to the infringement, and thus is liable for contributory infringement.”

DISH’s claim for vicarious infringement, that Jadoo TV received a direct financial benefit from the infringement and declined to exercise a right and ability to control it, also went in the broadcaster’s favor.

“Defendants do not contest that the infringement provided some financial benefit, which is all that is needed to find Defendants liable for vicarious infringement,” the order reads, adding that “the only evidence offered — including evidence from Defendants’ expert —unequivocally demonstrates that Jadoo profited from the infringement.”

DISH Wins Summary Judgment

After granting DISH’s motion for summary judgment, the court ordered the parties to submit a joint filing on the subject of what relief the court should provide to DISH within 45 days. DISH says it is entitled to statutory damages, Jadoo’s profits, attorneys’ fees, and a permanent injunction.

If the maximum of $150,000 per work is accepted by the court, statutory damages could reach $14.5 million for the 97 works in suit, with damages or profits for works published outside the United States to go on top. The final amount is yet to be determined, but it seems there will be no escape for Sohail.

As a result of the DISH lawsuit, which was coordinated by the International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy (IBCAP), Jadoo TV previously filed for bankruptcy, but after Sohail was found personally liable, options for recovery remain open.

“This ruling goes further than many other copyright cases coordinated by IBCAP. Here, the owner and CEO of one of the most popular South Asian services offering infringing content will not be permitted to hide behind a corporate shield and has been found personally liable for the damages caused by his and his company’s copyright infringement,” said Chris Kuelling, executive director of IBCAP.

“IBCAP and its members will not tolerate piracy, and the U.S. courts have once again not only sided with us by handing down a judgment against an infringing service, but also holding an owner personally accountable.”

The order granting summary judgment is available here (pdf)

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

Under U.S. law, online service providers need to respond to takedown notices and implement a meaningful policy to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers.

Many of the large social media platforms stick to these rules, but according to a lawsuit filed this week by several prominent music companies, Twitter is not among them.

‘Breeding Mass Copyright Infringement’

Universal Music, Sony Music, EMI and others filed a complaint at a federal court in Nashville, Tennessee, accusing Twitter’s parent company X Corp of “breeding” mass copyright infringement. The company allegedly fails to respond properly to takedown notices and lacks a proper termination policy.

As a result, Twitter is reportedly rife with music piracy. This activity generates many millions of views which are monetized by the social media platform, while rightsholders are not compensated.

“Twitter fuels its business with countless infringing copies of musical compositions, violating Publishers’ and others’ exclusive rights under copyright law,” the complaint reads.

“While numerous Twitter competitors recognize the need for proper licenses and agreements for the use of musical compositions on their platforms, Twitter does not, and instead breeds massive copyright infringement that harms music creators.”

The music companies say that while many online platforms have agreed to licensing deals, Twitter has shown little interest in compensating musicians. This hasn’t changed since Elon Musk took over. Instead, the attitude towards rightsholders seems to have worsened.

The lawsuit specifically mentions a tweet from Musk which described the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) as a “plague on humanity.”

“This statement and others like it exert pressure on Twitter employees, including those in its trust and safety team, on issues relating to copyright and infringement,” the music companies note.

The same DMCA provides the ammunition for this multi-million dollar lawsuit. With a provisional list of over 1,600 musical works, the potential damages run to hundreds of millions of dollars.

‘Music Piracy Fuels Revenue’

Twitter’s revenue partly relies on advertising which, in turn, is boosted by additional views. According to the music companies, these advertisements are also clearly visible around infringing content.

The complaint lists several examples of infringing tweets with advertisements and promoted users surrounding them, each with many thousands of views.

In many cases, users upload infringing music videos to the platform. These tend to be quite popular and engaging, but unlike other platforms such as TikTok, Facebook and YouTube, rightsholders are not compensated.

According to the music companies, these tweets are the kind of quintessential copyright infringement explicitly prohibited by U.S. copyright law. They are quite popular, however, and can collect hundreds of thousands of views, as is the case with the Rihanna tweet below.

“The tweet, which simply states, ’15 years ago, rihanna [sic] released ‘umbrella’ [sic]’, contains over two minutes of the official music video for Rihanna’s performance of ‘Umbrella.’ The infringing tweet garnered over 221,000 views and nearly 15k ‘likes’,” the music companies write.

These numbers don’t mean that the platform itself is doing anything wrong. Under the DMCA, which Musk referred to as a plague, services such as Twitter are shielded from liability under certain conditions. But this safe harbor doesn’t apply here, the music companies suggest.

DMCA Takedowns & Repeat Infringers

The complaint alleges that Twitter’s response to DMCA takedown notices is sub-par. Since December 2021, the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) has sent over 300,000 formal infringement notices, many of which didn’t lead to immediate removals.

“Despite claiming to take down tweets in response to an infringement notice within hours or minutes, Twitter routinely waits much longer before acting, if it acts at all.”

“Twitter’s incentive not to act expeditiously is clear. Twitter wants to maximize the benefit it receives from the infringing content on its platform before the tweet is deleted. As a general proposition, the value to Twitter of a tweet decreases over time.”

Under the DMCA, online platforms are required to implement a repeat infringer policy that allows for the termination of accounts that persistently share copyrighted content without permission.

The music companies note that Twitter used to have the term “terminate” in its copyright policy but in 2018 that wording was changed to “suspend.” These suspensions are not always permanent, the labels say.

“Even on the rare occasions where Twitter suspends an account used to infringe repeatedly, Twitter often reactivates that account after a short period of time. Twitter has suspended and reactivated certain accounts multiple times,” the complaint reads.

When accounts come back online, Twitter is more lenient to accounts with larger follower counts according to the music companies. The suggestion is that these accounts are more valuable to Twitter’s business model.

Hundreds of Millions

Based on these and other arguments, the complaint holds Twitter liable for both direct and contributory copyright infringement. Twitter’s actions cause substantial irreparable harm and the rightsholders seek compensation in return.

The complaint comes with a provisional list of over 1,600 musical works. For each of these, the rightsholders demand the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per work, which means that there is roughly a quarter of a billion dollars at stake.

Interestingly, this isn’t the first lawsuit of this size against Twitter. Earlier this year, celebrity photo agency Backgrid filed a similar case against Twitter, demanding $229 million in damages.

—

A copy of the music publishers’ complaint against Twitter, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee in Nashville is available here (pdf)

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

Faced with extradition to the United States to face copyright infringement, racketeering, and money laundering charges, last year Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk made a big decision.

In May 2022, the former Megaupload executives revealed that they had signed a deal to avoid extradition and would be charged with crimes in New Zealand instead. One month later, the men pleaded guilty to a raft of crimes, safe in the knowledge that any sentence would be served in New Zealand, not in a U.S. prison cell. Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom was not part of the deal.

The summary of charging facts stated that Ortmann was a 25% shareholder of Megaupload Limited and made around US$19 million from Megaupload. Colleague van der Kolk had a 2.5% share of the company and received approximately US$3 million.

“The defendants’ technical knowledge was indispensable to the creation and growth of Megaupload. Mr Dotcom ultimately determined matters of policy and direction but lacked the practical expertise to carry his wishes into effect,” the statement of facts noted.

Bram van der Kolk’s Coding Journey

“[Dotcom] relied on the defendants to set up and run the technical infrastructure of Megaupload. The offending would not have been possible without their involvement.”

Charges and Convictions

In June 2022, Ortmann and van der Kolk were convicted on four charges in total. Charges 1 and 2 related to offenses contrary to sections 98A and 7A of the Crimes Act 1961.

Section 98A of the Crimes Act 1961 states that a person is liable to imprisonment for participating in an organized criminal group; three or more people with an objective to obtain material benefits from the “commission of offenses” that are locally punishable by a four-year prison term. Section 7A of the Crimes Act 1961 relates to offenses that occurred wholly outside New Zealand but can be prosecuted locally.

The first charge related to offenses under 98A and 7A which carry a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment. The second charge was identical but carries a ten-year maximum sentence. The third charge related to offenses contrary to section 240(1)(d) and section 310 of the Crimes Act 1961. The fourth related to offenses contrary to sections 228 and 310 of the Crimes Act 1961.

Prison Sentences Handed Down at the High Court

At the High Court in Auckland today, Justice Sally Fitzgerald sentenced Mathias Ortmann to two years and seven months in prison. Bram van der Kolk received a prison sentence of two years and six months. Both will begin their sentences at Mt Eden Corrections Facility (MECF) is in the central Auckland suburb of Mt Eden.

Ortmann had faced a prison sentence of up to 10 years and six months, van der Kolk up to ten years, but their guilty pleas, cooperation – including with the FBI, rehabilitation, and an agreement to surrender NZ$10 million in overseas bank accounts, all played a part in reducing their sentences.

Since 2009, Bram has been married to Junelyn Alexis “Asia” Unana Agcaoili, a Filipina actress, television host, and model who previously appeared on the cover of FHM. Together they have a son, who was born and raised in New Zealand.

Through her company Cloud Innovations Limited , Agcaoili is a shareholder in Mega, the company built by the pair after the collapse of Megaupload. A trust in the name of Kim Dotcom’s wife, Elizabeth Donnelly, also retains shares in Mega .

According to a report from New Zealand Herald earlier this week, Bram and Mathias were hoping that the reputation ‘Mega’ had built inside the New Zealand government as a good corporate citizen would stand them in good stead.

The men were not immediately sent to serve their sentences today. Justice Sally Fitzgerald deferred imprisonment until August 1 to allow Ortmann to be present at the birth of his second child and for van der Kolk to spend time with his mother, who is in poor health.

Both men remain targets in civil lawsuits filed in the United States by the Motion Picture Association (MPA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) related to their work on Megaupload.

So What About Kim Dotcom?

During sentencing today, Crown lawyer David Boldt suggested that had Dotcom been in court today, he would’ve been facing a possible sentence of 16 years in prison.

To date, Dotcom has chosen to fight back against all charges, something that may now prove more difficult after Ortmann and van der Kolk, who haven’t spoken with Dotcom for close to a decade, agreed to testify against him.

After the Supreme Court ruled that Kim Dotcom can indeed be extradited to face a laundry list of criminal charges in the United States, the decision to send Dotcom northeast across the Pacific lies with Minister of Justice Kiri Allan.

The extradition warrant requires her signature, but even after pen is eventually put to paper, it’s likely that Dotcom would seek a judicial review to buy more time in New Zealand.

“I have received detailed submissions from Mr Dotcom. In due course I will receive further advice on those matters before making any decision,” Allen told New Zealand Herald this week. “Unfortunately, I cannot say how long that will take.”

Dotcom Reacts to Sentencing

On Twitter this morning, Dotcom said that the US Department of Justice charged members of the so-called “Megaupload conspiracy” with 185 years in jail.

“They raided us with 72 cops and dragged us though NZ Courts for 12 yrs. Today my co-defendants got 2.6 and 2.5 yrs. This could be converted to home detention in a few months?” Dotcom questioned.

“That’s why my former partners took the deal. Not because they actually believe that they are criminals. They are not. But they were tired of fighting and gave up in exchange for a 98.5% discount of the 185 yrs we were charged with. I don’t blame them. They have been through hell.”

After earlier criticism of his former colleagues, this morning Dotcom paused to congratulate them.

“My legal team says that my co-defendants in the Megaupload case are eligible for parole after 10 months and will likely get parole as part of the deal they made with the US Govt. They will serve less than a year instead of the 185 years we were charged with. Good for them,” Dotcom wrote .

Dotcom is the only remaining Megaupload executive still facing extradition to the United States. Megaupload marketing man Finn Batato passed away last year after succumbing to cancer.

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

Two years ago, Bungie filed a complaint at a federal court in Seattle, accusing AimJunkies.com of copyright and trademark infringement, among other things.

The same accusations were also made against Phoenix Digital Group, the alleged creators of the ‘Destiny 2’ cheating software.

AimJunkies denied the claims and argued that cheating isn’t against the law . In addition, it refuted the copyright infringement allegations; these lacked substance because some of the referenced copyrights were registered well after the cheats were first made available, AimJunkies said.

Early Win for AimJunkies

Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Zilly handed an early and partial win to AimJunkies . The original complaint didn’t provide sufficient evidence for a plausible claim that the ‘Destiny 2 Hacks’ infringed any copyrights, the Judge concluded.

This was a setback for Bungie, but the court allowed the game developer to amend its complaint, which it promptly did. As a result, the copyright infringement dispute is currently ongoing and progressing through the legal process.

During 2022, Judge Zilly referred several of the non-copyright-related complaints to arbitration, including allegations that AimJunkies’ cheats violated the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision and were illegally sold to third parties.

Arbitration Judge Sides with Bungie

The arbitration process was conducted behind the scenes and resulted in a resounding win for the game developer; Bungie was awarded a total of nearly $4.4 million in damages and fees .

The bulk of the award was DMCA-related damages. According to arbitration Judge Ronald Cox, the evidence makes it clear that AimJunkies and third-party developer James May bypassed Bungie’s technical protection measures in violation of the DMCA.

In addition to breaching the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions, the defendants were also found liable for trafficking in circumvention devices. Or, put differently, selling and shipping the cheats.

The DMCA circumvention and trafficking violations total nearly $3.6 million in damages with the remainder of the $4.4 million consisting of fees and costs.

Court Denies Objections, Confirms Damages Award

Shortly after the arbitration result, Bungie asked the federal court to have it confirmed. This was met with protests from the cheat seller, which asked the court to vacate the damages award.

According to AimJunkies, the arbitrator denied them a fair hearing by sustaining an objection. This prevented AimJunkies to use a prior deposition of Bungie’s witness for impeachment purposes. On top of that, they argue that the arbitrator was evidentially partial toward Bungie.

After reviewing the relevant submissions, District Court Judge Thomas Zilly denied AimJunkies’ objections and confirmed the arbitration order.

According to the court, AimJunkies could have tried other ways to bring up the impeachment. In addition, there’s no evidence that the arbitrator was evidentially partial to Bungie.

The final award totals $4,396,222 and consists of $3,657,500 in damages, $598,641 in attorneys’ fees, $101,800 in expert witness fees, and $38,281 in other expenses.

Legal Battle Continues

The court’s approval of the judgment is good news for Bungie. In addition to the financial aspect, it also comes with a permanent injunction that prevents the defendants from creating and selling similar hacks and cheats in the future.

That said, the legal battle is far from over. Bungie’s copyright and trademark infringement claims remain pending and both sides are expending significant legal resources to make their case.

In addition to Bungie’s claims, the countersuit in which third-party cheat developer James May accuses Bungie of ‘hacking,’ theft, and DMCA violations , has yet to be decided as well.

These remaining issues are expected to be resolved at a multi-day trial, which is scheduled to take place later this year.

—

A copy of U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Zilly’s order confirming the arbitration judgment is available here (pdf)

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

Soap2Day, one of the most popular movie and TV show pirate streaming sites on the Internet, says it has closed down ‘forever’

Official domains including soap2day.to, soap2day.ac, soap2day.sh, soap2day.mx, s2dfree.to, s2dfree.cc, s2dfree.de, s2dfree.is, s2dfree.nl , plus the site’s domain uptime advisory pages at soapgate.org and soapgate.cc , all display the same shutdown message.

Hello guys: We have decided to close soap2day forever. We are very sorry :) Bye – Soap2day Team

Other than the message above, the Soap2Day team has provided no additional details on the site’s sudden demise. Whatever the reasons, issues with traffic levels and visitor numbers seem unlikely to be part of that equation.

Soap2Day Was a Pirate Success Story

Despite web blocking, domain downranking in search engines, and other anti-piracy measures, Soap2Day was one of the big ‘pirate streaming’ success stories of recent years, with traffic trending upwards and massive visitor numbers every single month.

Traffic has been improving all year; 84.2m visits in January, 93.6m in February, with figures for March and beyond even more impressive.

SimilarWeb data for single domain: soap2day.to

To put these traffic levels into perspective, Soap2Day received more traffic than the recently closed RARBG , 30 million more monthly visits than leading torrent site YTS (and by extension every torrent site in the top 10 most-visited sites list ), and around 10 million visits more each month than streaming giant FMovies.

Given the above, it seems relatively safe to conclude that Soap2Day did not shut down due to a lack of popularity. Two domains used by the platform to notify users of official URLs (soapgate.org and soapgate.cc) received 12 million visits per month combined, yet neither offered any content for streaming.

So What Killed Soap2Day?

Soap2Day and similar large streaming sites face continuous pressure from global anti-piracy groups exerting pressure using various means, internationally and locally.

Late 2021, Hollywood and Netflix obtained a High Court injunction to block Soap2Day domains in the UK along with a similar order early February 2022 in Australia and an expansion a few months later.

The Motion Picture Association and Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment obtained a subpoena in the United States that aimed to unmask the site’s operators in March 2022.

As data from SimilarWeb shows, Soap2Day’s traffic in the United States made it a go-to location for movie and TV show fans, potentially at the expense of licensed platforms operating in the same market.

In October 2022, Hollywood reported Soap2Day to the United States government. The higher traffic levels reported at the time were due to the MPA combining various Soap2Day domains but perhaps the most interesting comment is the linking of Soap2Day with operators in China.

Soap2Day also found its way onto the UK’s Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit’s ‘Infringing Website List’ last October and just weeks later, was again targeted in a DMCA subpoena obtained by Hollywood.

Beware of Strangers Bearing Gifts

In common with RARBG, copycat sites claiming to be Soap2Day already exist in huge numbers and that volume is only likely to increase in the days and weeks to come. At the time of writing, based on loose calculations, there are at least 480 ‘Soap2Day’ branded domains in circulation.

Random tests on 50 of those domains in the past few hours revealed more than 20 attempts to dump malware. Anyone looking for Soap2Day alternatives should therefore be aware that movies and TV shows aren’t the only gifts on offer from would-be Soap2Day replacements.

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

Strike 3 Holdings has been a familiar name in U.S. federal courts for a while now.

Last year, the adult entertainment company filed a record-breaking number of lawsuits against alleged BitTorrent pirates.

The company is keeping up this pace in 2023, averaging dozens of lawsuits per week. Most of these are never mentioned in the press and a large number are settled behind closed doors.

Every now and then, an accused Internet subscriber objects, but these cases rarely go to trial. According to some, the lawsuits’ main objective is to collect settlement payments and default judgments.

Motion to Quash

This line of reasoning was also brought up by a “John Doe” defendant whose IP address was targeted in a recent complaint. The defendant submitted a motion to quash, hoping to prevent Comcast from revealing their identity.

“Considering the thousands of John Does being sued by Plaintiff, it is highly likely that Plaintiff has no intention of pursuing an actual trial on the merits in the thousands of copyright infringement cases filed by Plaintiff Strike 3,” Doe’s attorney writes.

“[Strike 3] instead hopes to profit from settlements with small and relatively resource limited individual defendants as well as default judgments against individual defendants who are unsure of how to, or feel they are financially unable to, defend themselves through the full course of a copyright infringement trial.”

Based on these and other arguments, the defendant tried to stop the lawsuit in its tracks. However, as we have seen before in these types of cases, the Colorado federal court denied the request.

According to U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty, who handles all the Strike 3 cases in the district, subpoenas to identify Internet subscribers can only be quashed if there’s a valid claim of privilege or if a privacy issue is implicated. That’s not the case here.

Reliability of the Evidence

The accused pirate’s motion raised questions about the accuracy of the evidence and whether it can accurately detect infringers. For example, if a subscriber has an open wifi network, others including neighbors might use it as well.

Judge Hegarty doesn’t deny this, but notes that this argument is not sufficient to quash the subpoena. Instead, the defendant can bring it up at a later stage.

“Defendant’s arguments challenging Plaintiff’s investigation methods and concerning the accessibility of a Wireless Firewall/Router are premature at this stage of the litigation and more properly raised during adjudication of the merits of this case,” Judge Hegarty writes.

If the case wasn’t allowed to go forward, rightsholders couldn’t possibly enforce their copyrights against alleged BitTorrent pirates, the order adds.

“In fact, Plaintiff’s attempt to obtain information from the ISP is a necessary first step in Plaintiff’s process of discovering the identity of the alleged infringer for the purpose of enforcing its copyright.”

No Troll

The argument that the company simply pursues these cases to collect settlements isn’t sufficient either. On top of that, the court refutes the suggestion that Strike 3 is a copyright troll.

“[T]he Court has neither observed nor been made aware of any particular Defendant in the cases before this Court who has experienced ‘coercive’ settlement tactics by Plaintiff,” Judge Hegarty writes.

“[T]his Court has handled over a hundred similar cases and consistently found these plaintiffs are not copyright trolls but rather actual producers of adult films whose works are infringed.”

Whether the term “troll” applies is a matter of semantics. A few weeks ago, a Florida court allowed the term to be used during a rare trial, which is scheduled to take place later this year.

Embarrassment and Undue Burden

Finally, the motion to quash highlighted the Doe defendant’s fears that exposing their identity could lead to undue embarrassment and all sorts of related problems.

Specifically, it “would be highly embarrassing to Defendant, unjustifiably stigmatizing to Defendant, injurious to Defendant’s character and reputation, and potentially jeopardizing to Defendant’s employment.”

Judge Hegarty admitted that these are serious concerns. However, since the defendants in these cases can request a protective order to proceed anonymously, it is no reason to quash the subpoena and end the case before it even gets started.

“The Court finds that Defendant has not met his or her burden of showing that the subpoena served on Comcast must be quashed. Therefore, the Court denies Defendant John Doe’s Motion to Quash,” Judge Hegarty concludes.

This outcome doesn’t come as a surprise as similar efforts in Colorado’s federal court have failed as well. However, it is important to highlight that these cases continue to make their way through the courts.

Since all Strike 3 cases in Colorado end up at Judge Hegarty’s desk, this order suggests that it will be very hard to submit a successful motion to quash in this district.

—

A copy of U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty’s order on the motion to quash the Comcast subpoena is available here (pdf)

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