According to the most recent order in Maria Schneider’s copyright lawsuit against YouTube, the long-running case is still scheduled for jury trial beginning Monday, June 12, 2023. Or at least what remains of it.

Based upon allegations that YouTube is a platform where rampant piracy goes unchecked, Schneider – with support from Uniglobe Entertainment and AST Publishing – had ambitions of class action certification, considerable sums in damages, and the jewel in the crown; universal access to YouTube’s Content ID system, to the benefit of creators everywhere.

Class Certification Denied

A key step towards achieving this goal was to have the plaintiffs’ case certified as a class action. In an order handed down last month, Judge James Donato explained why that wouldn’t happen.

“It has been said that ‘copyright claims are poor candidates for class-action treatment,’ and for good reason. Every copyright claim turns ‘upon facts which are particular to that single claim of infringement, and separate from all the other claims’,” his order denying certification reads.

“This is not to say that certification of a copyright infringement class is per se impossible. The Court certainly does not hold that here. But these factors underscore the challenges that plaintiffs face in seeking to obtain class certification.”

Unique Events, Unique Challenges

With its twists and turns, this lawsuit has presented constant challenges.

Lawsuits that seek to explore new ground are often complex, but the idea that YouTube’s restriction of access to Content ID effectively amounts to a breach of copyright law seems as much a stretch today as it did three years ago .

That this lawsuit originally featured a plaintiff called Pirate Monitor, which according to Google, deliberately uploaded thousands of videos and then proceeded to take them down under the DMCA, to boost infringement claims in this very lawsuit, is outrageous.

Pirate Monitor Ltd, Pirate Monitor LLC, and reported owner Gabor Csupo were subsequently targeted in a YouTube counterclaim for fraud/breach of contract. That Pirate Monitor LLC does not actually exist seemed to be part of the problem, a problem now solved after the Court dismissed the ‘company’ from the action.

As for the fraud/contract counterclaims against Csupo and Pirate Monitor Ltd, YouTube has decided not to pursue them, so only the DMCA notice claims remain.

Joint Trial Plan

Following a second pretrial conference on June 5, the Court issued orders in advance of the jury trial set for June 12.

In respect of Schneider’s infringement claims, the order states that the parties have agreed to try “six bellwether infringement works and six bellwether CMI [Content Management Information] violations” based on statutory damages on a per work (not per infringement) basis. The damages that may be awarded will be applied to the remaining claims on a pro-rata basis.

By agreement, the plaintiffs are required to dismiss AST Publishing as a party, dismiss the foreign unregistered works infringement claims by AST and Uniglobe, and dismiss Schneider’s claims in respect of CLFN (ClipFileName) metadata.

If all goes to plan, an in-person conference tomorrow afternoon will discuss the jury questionnaire responses, and by 7:00am June 12, the parties will have submitted a final joint list of witnesses to the Court.

“During witness testimony, all individuals at the tables for counsel will remain seated and silent except for the attorneys handling the examination. An opposing party’s presentations and witness examinations are not an opportunity for the other side to engage in discussions, take deliveries, rummage through boxes, and the like,” Judge Donata’s instructions read.

“Violators will be excused from the courtroom for the day and possibly the remainder of the trial, depending on circumstances.”

That seems unlikely to happen, perhaps as unlikely as this lawsuit fulfilling its key ambition of forcing change at YouTube, including universal access to Content ID. Unless Schneider’s emergency appeal to the Ninth Circuit regarding class certification suddenly turns the tide.

Referenced court documents can be found here ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )

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

Despite the growing availability of legal options, online piracy remains rampant. In Japan, manga comics are a particularly popular category.

Publishers are attempting to deal with this issue by ramping up enforcement. This recently led to major success when a Cloudflare probe helped to shut down 13DL , Japan’s largest pirate site.

These enforcement efforts are intensifying but they are not new. Back in 2019, Japanese authorities arrested the operator of Mangamura, one of the leading manga pirate sites at the time.

Mangamura had only been around for roughly two years but according to Japan-based anti-piracy group CODA, it caused well over $2 billion in damages to the local manga industry. The operator of the site, Romi Hoshino, was held responsible and eventually pleaded guilty in a criminal prosecution.

In 2021 the Fukuoka District Court sentenced Hoshino to three years in prison and more $650,000 in fines. This is a serious sentence, no doubt, but the publishers weren’t done yet.

Publishers Demand Millions in Piracy Damages

Last summer, manga publishers Kodakawa, Shogakukan, and Shueisha filed a civil lawsuit against the former Mangamura operator. Together, the companies requested 1.9 billion yen in damages. That’s close to US$14 million based on today’s exchange rate, without taking into account the 5% interest rate on top.

According to the complaint, Mangamura had around 100 million monthly visits at its peak. This arguably made it one of the largest pirate sites in history with the now 31-year-old Hoshino as the main defendant.

“The monthly visits went up to 100,000,000, and based on [CODA’s] calculation, the amount of the damages was estimated to be approximately 320,000,000,000 yen. Due to the large scale of the infringement, it was recognized as a social problem and named the ‘worst piracy site in history’,” the complaint reads.

This lawsuit is very much a Japanese endeavor but this week the manga publishers made an appearance at a California federal court where they requested subpoena to obtain vital information from Google and Cloudflare.

Google and Cloudflare Data is Crucial

Mangamura allegedly used the services of the American tech companies as part of its daily operations. The publishers believe that data from the companies could help to substantiate its claims.

This includes Google Analytics data to back up the visitor numbers, for example. Similarly, Cloudflare may have traffic stats as well and both companies should be able to connect the Mangamura operation to the main defendant.

“In support of the Applicants’ claims in the Lawsuit, additional information would be needed to verify (a) the accuracy of the calculation of their damages claimed in the Lawsuit, and (b) the identifying information relating to Mangamura to show the connection between Mangamura and Hoshino,” the subpoena request reads.

“[T]he number of visits or accesses to each of the Infringing Websites and the identifying information relating to the Mangamura would be critical in the Lawsuit,” the publishers add, adding that Google and Cloudflare are the only parties that can provide access to it.

The request was filed in court yesterday and has yet to be signed off on. In addition to the main mangamura.org domain, the less-frequently used manga-mura.net is also listed. The domains reportedly had different Google Analytics IDs.

Sending a Message

Whether Google and Cloudflare can deliver the requested information has yet to be seen. In any case, the publishers are determined to hold the operator of the defunct site financially responsible for the damages they suffered.

The Japanese complaint mentions that Hoshino likely had help from co-conspirators but no other names are listed. The Tokyo District Court did previously fine two advertising companies for placing ads on Mangamura. Neither of these companies show up in the publishers’ civil lawsuit.

Despite the fact that there’s only a single target in the Japanese lawsuit, the publishers hope that their legal action will eventually make other pirate site operators rethink their actions.

“We hope that the lawsuit will be conveyed to operators around the world and will deter them [from pirating],” Shueisha’s head of PR, Atsushi Ito, said previously.

—

Copies of the subpoenas requested by the three manga publishers are available here ( Google / Cloudflare ) and the associated application can be found here .

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

Last week the popular torrent site RARBG closed its doors . The operators cited personal and financial reasons for the surprise decision, which came as a shock to many.

In recent days there have been plenty of attempts to restore the old database. Some are considering the launch of new sites to keep the RARBG spirit alive but collecting metadata and copying a site’s design isn’t the main challenge.

The shutdown is significant in the sense that a major supplier of pirated content was taken offline. Taking on that role isn’t easy; it requires the right connections, technical expertise, and a willingness to risk being taken to court, or worse, thrown in jail.

RARBG Clones and Copycats

Despite the risks, there are plenty of RARBG-themed sites that have seen a flurry of new visitors in recent days. Some launched specifically for the occasion but others were around long before the site said farewell.

What motivates people to run these sites can be difficult to identify. Some operators may believe that they’re doing a good deed by harboring refugees, but there are also those that willingly try to deceive people into believing that RARBG is still operational.

Over the past few days, we received multiple tips from the public claiming that RARGB.to was back online. And indeed, those who visit that URL will end up at a site that looks like RARBG.

When people end up at that site using the referral site below, it may seem like the site is indeed back online. Until reality kicks in.

Those who look more closely will soon realize that it’s all a façade. Rar GB .to isn’t the same as Rar BG .to and altering the text of the hyperlink, as was done here, doesn’t change that fact. However, it hasn’t stopped the site from welcoming millions of new users.

Known Trickster

Interestingly, this knockoff site isn’t new. The operation has been around for years already and hijacked visitors from the original RARBG during this time. It often ended up higher in Google’s search rankings, which helped it to grow to millions of monthly visitors.

With RARBG gone, this number will likely skyrocket effortlessly, to potentially over a million visitors per day.

While the knockoff site does offer torrents, it is merely a collection of material sourced from external sites. The copycat operation doesn’t share any ‘original’ content and sneakily monetizes the RARBG brand, which is obviously starting to pay off now.

There are many sites like this. The motivations of the people running it may be different but most claim that they simply want to ‘fill the void’ RARBG left behind. However, scraping torrents and links from third-party sources and wrapping them in RARBG foil does little to achieve that goal.

RARBG is Gone

The reality is that RARBG is not coming back. We asked the RARBG team for a comment and they confirm that there are no official proxies, mirrors, or rebuilds. The real RARBG is gone, period.

But does it matter? Before we even finished the sentence above, some people will have discovered a ‘new RARBG’. Apparently, this is simply how these things go. That doesn’t come as a surprise, of course, as we have seen this trick play out a few times before.

After all, there are plenty of KickassTorrents , Extratorrent , and Torrentz clones around today, even though the original sites have long gone.

Also, the YTS website, which is arguably the largest torrent site in the web, once started as a knockoff. That site releases its ‘own’ branded content today, but it has privacy issues that put it into a bad light in recent years.

Whether one of the RARBG copycats or clones will eventually stick is hard to predict at this point, especially since the unavoidable legal pressure has yet to kick in. One thing is for sure, however; any and all RARBG ‘replacements’ have absolutely nothing to do with the original site.

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

At a time when a limited number of rightsholders were demanding thousands of dollars from alleged BitTorrent pirates, Rightscorp focused on the budget end of the market.

By attaching settlement demands to DMCA notices sent to ISPs, Rightscorp hoped these would be forwarded intact to subscribers. Rather than demand large sums, Rightscorp requested a relatively small amount, typically around $20, an amount payable through a dedicated portal. Not all ISPs passed the notices on but, thanks to those that did, Rightscorp believed it had a strong base to build on.

Over the next few years, the plan to turn piracy into profit failed to meet its key objective. At the time, Rightscorp was a publicly listed company but was hemorrhaging money. In 2014, the company revealed a $2.2m loss for the previous year, $6.5m in losses since the company launched in 2011.

After reporting even more losses a year later, Rightscorp stared into the abyss, but then a key event threw it a lifeline. A federal court in Virginia found that, by failing to take appropriate action in response to Rightscorp notices, ISP Cox Communications became liable for subscribers’ copyright violations when they downloaded and shared music owned by music publisher BMG.

Unprofitable But On the Money

For at least five years Rightscorp had warned that ISPs risked huge liability if they failed to disconnect repeat infringers. The company hadn’t been able to turn that into profit but momentum was building for companies with access to Rightscorp’s historical piracy monitoring data.

After being prompted by Rightscorp, the RIAA successfully sued Grande Communications and then won $1 billion in damages from Cox Communications, all underpinned by Rightscorp data.

Can The Indie Market Give Rightscorp a Boost?

Appeals in the above cases are still ongoing but Rightscorp’s earlier warnings were proven correct. The big question now is whether Rightscorp can somehow turn that prophecy into profit. In an announcement this week, Rightscorp said that it had joined A2IM (American Association of Independent Music), a non-profit trade organization representing the independent music industry in the United States.

“This collaboration aims to combat illegal peer-to-peer (P2P) torrent digital copyright theft and safeguard the rights of creators and content owners in the ever-evolving digital landscape. A2IM represents over 600 independent music labels and businesses, advocating for their rights and fostering a sustainable and vibrant independent music sector,” Rightscorp’s announcement reads.

Rightscorp says it joined A2IM with the intention to “educate and service the interests of independent musicians, songwriters, and music publishers” based on its “proven track record of successful initiatives” but whether independent labels have any interest in complex ISP liability lawsuits is unknown.

Collaboration or Just Networking?

It’s also unclear whether Rightscorp’s definition of “collaboration” with A2IM goes any further than the benefits usually enjoyed by ‘Associate Members’ of the organization, i.e. having access to the labels and being in a better position to offer relevant services .

After Rightscorp became an A2IM associate member, A2IM did publish an outline of Rightscorp’s business proposals, which cover three main components: having pirates kicked off the internet, persuading pirates to pay a settlement, or using Rightscorp data to take legal action, presumably against intermediaries.

“Once piracy has been detected, Rightscorp can provide termination notices to internet providers for their users who are infringing on copyrighted works. These notices serve as legal notification to internet providers of infringing activity from their customers,” the Rightscorp ‘ spotlight ‘ reads, alongside images from Ars Technica and TF.

“Additionally, Rightscorp has established a Notice Settlement Model, which includes a 50/50 split for any amounts received, and ISPs will have the responsibility to forward our notices in adherence to DMCA requirements for termination of repeat infringement activity.”

ISPs Are Now Acutely Aware of the Rules

While there’s little doubt that ISPs are in a much more precarious position than they were six years ago, they have the benefit of knowing exactly what is required of them. The question is whether that will make them more – or less – cooperative.

Rightscorp seems to suggest the former but the idea that it can send actionable “termination notices” to ISPs appears somewhat speculative on the cooperation front. Repeat infringer policies are for ISPs to determine and then actioned in a manner of their choosing. While that didn’t go as planned previously, they’re unlikely to make the same mistakes moving forward.

As for the notice settlement model, that assumes that ISPs will forward cash demands to their customers along with DMCA notices. There is zero requirement for that under the DMCA but only time will tell how far ISPs will be prepared to go; the underlying threat for uncooperative ISPs is that Rightscorp data could be used to sue them.

“Rightscorp also offers a Litigation Model, which is customizable based on the range of copyrights held in the data base. Successful litigation precedents have already been set by Rightscorp, and parameters of infringement within the data base can be tailored to your specific needs. Rightscorp’s fee for this service is proportional to the scope of the complaint,” the advert reads .

There is no mention of the above on the Rightscorp website but we did find something unusual. Rightscorp.com has been the company’s domain for years but located at Rightscorp.co, a domain registered just recently, a shiny new website has appeared featuring the logos of major labels, publishers and industry groups.

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

On January 2, 2015, a new system designed to assist copyright holders and better protect consumers went live in Canada.

Under the ‘Notice and Notice’ regime, ISPs are required to forward rightsholders’ copyright infringement notices to subscribers, in most cases those linked to the downloading and sharing of movies using BitTorrent. While generally considered a step forward, some warned that aggressive rightsholders would leverage the system to benefit themselves.

Late 2018, after some companies did exactly that, the Canadian government amended the Copyright Act to prohibit the inclusion of settlement demands in warning notices. Since then, rightsholders have filed dozens of applications at Federal Court to obtain the identities of tens of thousands of subscribers – many of whom were alleged notice recipients – so they could be sent cash settlement demands.

Same Core Companies, Same Core Business Model

Companies including Millennium Funding, Outpost Productions, Bodyguard Productions, Hunter Killer, and Rambo V Productions, make regular appearances in copyright lawsuits in the U.S. It was inevitable that their settlement model would eventually target Canadian subscribers but anyone paying attention would’ve known that was only the warm-up act.

Under common ownership , the same companies have also been suing and obtaining settlements from intermediaries in the U.S. including hosting companies , VPN providers , and the latest targets, internet service providers .

Regardless of jurisdiction, these actions operate along broadly the same lines; identify areas where intermediaries have allegedly failed to meet their piracy-fighting obligations, and then ruthlessly pursue high-value claims until a settlement begins to sound more appealing than the alternatives.

In their lawsuit against Bell, Millennium Funding and the other companies assert copyrights in half a dozen movies which may have been worth less than $1 million in damages in a U.S. lawsuit, give or take. In Canada, intermediaries who fail to meet their obligations under the Notice and Notice scheme face statutory damages of between CAD$5,000 and $10,000.

The movie companies claim that they sent over 81,000 notices to Bell between February 2019 and June 2021 but Bell failed to forward almost 40,000 of them. As a result, the plaintiffs believe they can multiply each of those notices by CAD$10,000 and file a claim against Bell for CAD$400 million.

First Bell Subscribers, Now Bell Itself

During a court hearing earlier this year dealing with the case against Bell, a lawyer for Bell Canada described the studios’ settlement model targeting internet users as “extortion.”

An attorney representing the studio’s legal team said that if Bell had an issue with handing over its customers’ details as part of the Notice and Notice scheme, it could have mentioned that earlier – when handing over its customers’ details as part of earlier applications, for example.

While the “extortion” comment was later withdrawn, allegations in a Bell counterclaim filed in response to the original CAD$400 million lawsuit had already gone much further. In a somewhat unusual move, Bell sued Aird & Berlis LLP, the law firm hired by the studios to send the infringement notices and the architect of their enforcement program in Canada.

Bell’s defense is relatively straightforward. The ISP admits that not all of the notices sent by the Millennium plaintiffs were forwarded to subscribers but any shortfall was for legitimate reasons. In some cases, the plaintiffs’ notices were not sent or not received by Bell. Other notices were not forwarded to subscribers because they contained inaccurate information, were duplicates of notices already sent, or Bell was unable to forward them because it had no email addresses on file for customers.

Bell Comes Out Fighting

In its counterclaim, Bell accused the plaintiffs and Aird & Berlis of engaging in conduct that constitutes misuse of copyright, abuse of process, and champerty and maintenance, whereby a third-party pays some or all of the litigation costs in return for a share of the proceeds. An “illegal and unlawful means conspiracy” that runs counter to public policy and the public interest, the company added.

In his order last June, Case Management Judge Kevin R. Aalto began with an analogy.

“It is often said in sports that the best defense is a good offense. Sometimes the same can be said for litigation. That is what Bell is trying to achieve here by suing by way of counterclaim the law firm acting for Millennium and raising what are policy issues relating to the Copyright Act,” Judge Aalto wrote.

“That is not the purpose of litigation. That is a matter for Parliament. Bell’s attempt to turn this case into an inquiry on the propriety of copyright enforcement arising from the Notice and Notice Regime is misplaced.”

Bell said that Aird & Berlis intimidated alleged infringers and forced settlements greater than actual damages suffered. Judge Aalto pointed out that the Notice and Notice regime facilitates no direct communication between rightsholders and alleged infringers. Contact only takes place after the plaintiffs obtain their identities as part of a separate process.

More fundamentally, Judge Aalto said no facts supported Bell’s allegation of misuse of copyright, even if misuse of copyright was a cause of action, which it is not. If misuse of copyright was applicable at all, that would be for alleged infringers to address, not Bell.

Allegations, But Little to Support Them

In another setback for Bell, the abuse of process and unlawful means conspiracy allegations performed no better than the allegations of champerty and maintenance.

“There are no material facts whatsoever to connect the dots as to how [Aird & Berlis] and Millennium are not in a solicitor-client relationship that somehow amounts to the tort of abuse or unlawful means conspiracy,” Judge Aalto added .

With that, Bell’s allegations of copyright misuse, champerty and maintenance, abuse of process and unlawful means conspiracy were struck out, without leave to amend. Bell went on to appeal and in an order dated May 31, 2023, Judge Angela Furlanetto mostly found in favor of the Case Management Judge and by extension, the movie companies.

Bell Canada wasn’t the first and certainly won’t be the last to describe settlement schemes as extortion. Equally, the companies in this particular action won’t be the last to remind people that in the face of large-scale piracy, plaintiffs are legally permitted to run right up against the limits of the law until lawmakers decide otherwise.

In that respect, not a single inch of progress was made in the last 15 years, globally, but it’s the tendency for defendants to settle that provides the most fuel. The question is whether Bell will decide to make a stand or top up the tank along with its customers.

Millennium Funding, Inc. v. Bell Canada: Proceedings and May 31, 2023 Order

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

Manga comics are popular around the globe in a content category that has seen piracy grow significantly in recent years.

This popularity is also apparent in manga’s home country Japan, where several dedicated pirate sites are active.

Publishers are working hard to counter this trend and last month they turned to a U.S. court for help. Working with the Japanese anti-piracy group CODA, manga publisher Shueisha obtained a DMCA subpoena that required Cloudflare to uncover the identities of several pirate site operators.

13DL.to Folds

This legal strategy doesn’t always pay off as some site operators use strawmen and fake data, but in this case, the publisher struck gold. Soon after the subpoena was issued, Japan’s largest manga piracy site 13DL.to stopped releasing new content.

New uploads stopped appearing three days after the DMCA subpoena to Cloudflare was issued and the site’s operator later confirmed that the site has shut down for good. At the time of writing, it’s no longer operational.

This is a major win for the publishers as 13DL.to had an estimated 25 million monthly visits, mostly from Japan. The site listed links to fresh manga releases which were distributed through external file-hosting platforms such as RapidGator, TakeFile, Novafile, WupFile, and HexUpload.

Cyberlocker Targets

Several of these hosting sites were also targeted in the DMCA subpoena obtained by the publisher, after they were first targeted in a regular DMCA notice, listed below.

According to CODA, the operator of 13DL was responsible for uploading the pirated comics to these third-party sites. This provided a source of revenue through the affiliate payments these cyberlockers offer.

CODA notes that Cloudflare has yet to respond to the DMCA subpoena but is expected to do so this month. In addition to information on 13DL, platforms including takefile.link, novafile.org, wupfile.com, hexupload.net, and manga-zip.is are also part of the legal request.

‘Final Present’

In addition to the Cloudflare probe, CODA is also working with the publishers and ‘ethical hackers’ to explore other options to uncover the identity of 13DL’s operator. This includes going after one of the aforementioned cyberlockers, which is presumably operated from Scandinavia.

The latter action was prompted by a ‘final present’ the operator shared with users. The gift is a file containing download links to 180,000 pirated manga works that was shared after the site announced its shutdown.

“CODA, in cooperation with the rights holders, attorney Nakajima, and ethical hackers, is currently requesting procedures from a local law firm in Scandinavia, where the cyberocker is believed to operate, in order to promptly file a sender information disclosure request regarding the distribution of the ‘final present’.

“We will use every means at our disposal to identify the operator,” CODA notes in its press release.

Following 13DL’s demise several copycat sites appeared, using the 13DL brand in an attempt to fill the void. According to CODA, people should stay away from these sources, for their own safety.

“[These sites are] operated by criminals, and you may be infected with malicious malware by clicking on ads or downloading infringing material. Please be careful not to access these sites,” the group warns.

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

Studying can be a costly endeavor. Aside from the party budget, there are books and tuition fees to pay as well.

To reduce costs, some students choose to share books or buy cheaper second-hand versions. Others go a step further and venture onto the dark side, by downloading or even buying ‘pirated’ books.

These cost-saving tactics are nothing new. A few decades ago, copying machines at universities were already duplicating copyrighted works every day of the week. However, with digital books becoming more common, copying has become a breeze. This is a form of progress that publishers are not happy with.

Danish Deterrent?

Textbook piracy is happening around the globe. While enforcement is relatively rare, in Denmark several students have been convicted for selling pirated copies of textbooks. Publishers hoped that these cases would act as a deterrent but there are no signs that this is the case.

Danish anti-piracy group Rights Alliance recently published a new study , conducted by Epinion, which polled the attitudes and behaviors of students towards digital textbooks. In particular, those that are obtained illegally.

There have been several of these surveys over the years, which makes it possible to see how patterns change over time. In this case, things aren’t trending in the right direction. Despite lawsuits and public calls to avoid piracy, students continue to obtain unlicensed books from various sources.

50% Obtain Textbook Illegally

Of all the students that used digital textbooks (84%), half admit to having used at least some ‘pirated’ copies. This number has been relatively stable since 2020 and doesn’t seem to be impacted by recent prosecutions and fines handed out by the courts.

This relatively high percentage doesn’t mean that students are oblivious to the law; 70% admit to knowing that piracy is illegal.

How many books are obtained illegally can differ quite a bit. For some, it’s just a book or two, but one in four of the ‘pirating’ students acquire more than half of all textbooks through unofficial sources. And 7% of these students obtain between 91% and 100% of their books illegally.

Jail Threat Doesn’t Scare Students

Rights Alliance stresses that educational institutions have a role to play. They should put more effort into educating students on the subject, an issue that’s often overlooked.

“There is a concrete need for educational institutions to be sharper in their communication to students in this area,” says Rights Alliance director Maria Fredenslund.

“When management, teachers and tutors on the programs distance themselves from illegal sharing of study books, it has a concrete effect on the social norms within the programs,” she adds.

The question is whether this will make a massive difference. The majority of the survey respondents were already aware of the illegal nature of book ‘piracy’ but continue anyway. Apparently it goes a long way towards saving costs.

This is also reflected in the research, which found that only 18% would consider reducing their illegal textbook habits if they risked jail time. In addition, a lack of support from one’s social circle would only motivate 11% to reconsider.

It’s All About the Money

There is one key element that would sway students to go legal and that is price. The survey found that roughly half of the pirating students would purchase books if prices were significantly reduced.

To convince the majority of this group to change their behavior, prices should be at least 50% cheaper than they are now. This is probably not the solution publishers are looking for, however.

In addition to slashing prices, better access to digital books through official libraries is also mentioned as a solution by many students. Again, this is another way to reduce costs.

All in all the research shows that it will be hard to stop textbook piracy as long as the legal alternatives are considered unaffordable. Prosecuting more people and launching awareness campaigns may convince some to change their habits but, for the majority, it’s all about the money.

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

With torrent sites dominating the high seas of piracy in 2006, Bulgarian authorities decided to arrest Eliyan Geshev, administrator of the the country’s most popular tracker, ArenaBG.

Public uproar in Bulgaria was significant but just a day later, Geshev was a free man once again. After police provided zero evidence of any crimes being committed, a court found no grounds for Geshev’s initial arrest. Reporters who attempted to interview Geshev as he left court suddenly found themselves attacked by security guards.

In advance of Geshev being detained, the government had promised to “show no mercy” when targeting pirate site operators. In the wake of his release, Bulgarian authorities charged with tackling organized crime ordered ISPs to block ArenaBG.

Three ISPs said they would comply, others refused after declaring site-blocking “illegal.”

Site-Blocking Returns 15 Years Later

At the time, ArenaBG was hosted in the U.S. so in theory could’ve been handled there. In the end that wasn’t necessary as the blocking instructions against ArenaBG were withdrawn. In other EU countries, site-blocking plans were quietly gaining traction and would continue to do so.

Neighboring Greece approved blocking measures in 2012. Progress was dampened three years later due to constitutional concerns but today, Greece is a fully-fledged member of the EU site-blocking club, alongside its latest recruit: Bulgaria.

A decision handed down May 31, 2023 at the Sofia City Court requires three Bulgarian internet service providers to block two major torrent platforms. The names of the ISPs are unhelpfully redacted in court documents, but not so the names of the sites. Somewhat predictably, The Pirate Bay makes yet another appearance in a site-blocking action, along with Zamunda, the most popular torrent site in Bulgaria.

Recording Industry Behind The Action

The initial claim was filed in February 2020 by the Bulgarian Association of Music Producers (BAMP) with support from IFPI, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry.

Court documents reveal that the claimants requested a dynamic injunction against the main domains of The Pirate Bay and Zamunda, plus any other domains, sub-domains, mirror and proxy sites that may facilitate access to the sites in future.

Based on claims that over 90% of the sound recordings indexed by the sites are protected by copyright and shared illegally by Bulgarian BitTorrent users, BAMP and IFPI referenced the CJEU ruling in the BREIN/ Ziggo case ( C-610/15 ). The CJEU found that ISPs in Member States can be ordered to block access to The Pirate Bay, even though the site itself stores no infringing content.

In respect of the three unnamed ISPs, the claimants said that since they’re intermediaries whose services are used by third parties to infringe copyright, under Article 8, paragraph 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC the following applies:

Member States shall ensure that rightholders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright or related right

In written responses filed by two of the three ISPs, BAMP and IFPI’s claims were bluntly described as “inadmissible.”

Bulgarian ISPs Fight Back

One of the ISPs, identified only as ‘N.1’ in court documents, described the claim as unfounded and inadmissible, adding that it “opposes the active legitimization of the plaintiff.” The ISP also pointed out that Bulgarian law does not recognize a claim “for blocking access to Internet sites.” As for EU law requiring Member States to ensure access to injunction applications, that would not apply here because Bulgaria hadn’t yet transposed that into national law.

Pushing back further still, the ISP disputed allegations that it enables subscribers to commit copyright infringement on the torrent sites, so therefore disputes that its subscribers use the sites to download pirated content using BitTorrent. In summary, the ISP asked for the claim to be rendered inadmissible or possibly rejected as unfounded.

The ISP identified as ‘F.1’ used the words ‘inadmissible’ and ‘baseless’ to describe the claim. The ISP said that the claim was filed for the “termination of a violation” but since the claim failed to provide any details in respect of the ISP, conducting an effective defense would be difficult. In common with ‘N.1’, the ISP ‘F.1′ asked for the claim to rendered inadmissible or rejected as groundless.

After the ISPs questioned the accuracy of translations, and the authenticity and validity of IFPI/BAMP legal documents, the Court appointed forensic experts to investigate. The details of the various findings occupy a large part of the decision, including details of a dispute related to the claimants’ standing to bring a claim and the eventual termination of claims relating to unnamed foreign music producers.

ISPs Required to Block Pirate Bay and Zamunda

The Sofia City Court ultimately decided that the ISPs must block both sites.

“[T]he defendant companies, in their capacity as providers of Internet access, should be sentenced to take action within a period of up to six months, the necessary actions to stop the illegal use by envisaging and implementing measures aimed at blocking the Internet access of its users, to the web pages on which the online file sharing platforms ‘ThePirateBay’ and ‘Zamunda’ are accessible.”

The ISPs will be able to determine their own methods of blocking to “best match their resources and capacity,” with a threshold of “at least making it difficult to carry out unauthorized visits” to The Pirate Bay and Zamunda.

Industry Groups Stay Positive

In a joint press release, the recording industry groups focused on the positives.

“We welcome the decision of the Sofia City Court, which marks a major step forward in the recorded music industry’s fight against online music piracy,” said BAMP executive director Petya Tocharova

“For the first time in Bulgaria, a court decision has been issued to block access to pirate websites, and we consider this precedent an important step in the right direction.”

Francis Moore, Chief Executive of the IFPI, said: “We welcome this decision and the impact it will have on curbing illegal access to music. Copyright infringement of any kind causes serious harm to local music ecosystems and diverts money away from those who create and invest in music.”

Whether blocking two torrent sites will have much of an impact on music piracy is unclear. Research cited in the blocking decision reported 27,000 files containing music available via The Pirate Bay and 44,000 on Zamunda. The overwhelming majority of music piracy today involves content ripped from YouTube, a site with dozens of millions tracks completely unhindered by blocking.

Measurable impact of site-blocking on piracy tends to appear when many sites are blocked at once, at least according to industry reports. That raises the prospect of numerous return visits to Bulgarian courts, in potentially adversarial circumstances, at a time when cooperation is seen as the only real solution to a very complex problem.

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

Internet provider Cox Communications has been on the sharp end of several piracy lawsuits in recent years.

The biggest hit came four years ago when the Internet provider lost its legal battle against a group of major record labels.

$1 Billion Appeal

A Virginia jury held Cox liable for pirating subscribers because it failed to terminate accounts after repeated accusations, ordering the company to pay $1 billion in damages to the labels. This landmark ruling is currently under appeal .

As part of the appeal, Cox informed the court of a supplemental authority that could support its position. The case in question is Twitter vs. Taamneh , in which the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that the social media platform isn’t liable for ISIS terrorists, who used Twitter to recruit and raise funds.

The Supreme Court rejected the claim that Twitter aided-and-abetted terrorist activity, because it didn’t “consciously and culpably” participate in the illegal activity. According to Cox, the same logic applies in its case, where the ISP was held liable for the piracy activities of subscribers.

“These same aiding-and-abetting principles animate copyright law’s contributory liability doctrine, and they likewise foreclose liability here,” an attorney for Cox informed the court.

Cox argues that the Supreme Court ruling confirms that aiding-and-abetting liability only applies when parties knowingly took part in the activity. That runs contrary to the finding in its own dispute with the record labels, where “culpable expression and conduct” or “intent” were not required.

“Though Twitter arises in a different context, its reasoning applies with full force and supports reversal of the contributory infringement verdict,” Cox added.

The two cases are indeed quite different, but ultimately they are about imposing liability on third-party services. According to Cox, the Twitter terrorist ruling clearly shows that it isn’t liable for pirating subscribers, but the music companies see things differently.

Terrorists vs. Pirates

Earlier this week, the music labels responded in court, countering Cox’s arguments. They argue that the Twitter ruling doesn’t apply to their piracy dispute with Cox, as the cases are grounded in different laws.

While the music industry certainly isn’t happy with pirates, the Cox case is a copyright matter while the Twitter lawsuit fell under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. And for now, pirates are not categorized as terrorists.

“Twitter arose under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. Plaintiffs there identified ‘no duty’ under that terrorism statute requiring defendants ‘to terminate customers after discovering that the customers were using the service for illicit ends’.”

“This case arises under the Copyright Act. This Court has already held that an internet-service provider has a duty to ‘do something’ about known infringers,” the music companies ‘counsel adds.

‘Not So Passive’

After establishing the difference between pirates and terrorists, the music companies point out that Twitter wasn’t directly connected to the misconduct. The platform’s role was more passive and its connection to ISIS was more distant than Cox’s connection to its subscribers.

Cox took a more active role and materially contributed to the pirating activities, which stands no comparison to the Twitter case, plaintiffs argue.

“Cox was not so passive,” the music company counsel writes, adding that the Internet provider “set up sham policies ensuring infringement would continue.”

“Cox knew of specific instances of infringement occurring on its network, tied them to specific users, and chose not to terminate those users to avoid ‘losing revenue from paying subscribers’,” the reply brief adds.

How the court of appeal will interpret the Twitter ruling remains to be seen. With $1 billion in damages on the line, both sides will likely do everything in their power to fight this case to the bitter end, and it may ultimately find its way to the Supreme Court.

—

A copy of Cox’s letter to the court, including the referenced Supreme Court ruling can be found here (pdf) . The music companies ‘reply is available here (pdf)

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