This article consists of a collection of words that were once invented, most of them long before copyright or trademarks existed.

Words form the building blocks of today’s society; they help to foster creativity and communication, and represent the driving force behind human intelligence.

These same words are now used as input by generative AI that will ultimately lead to new breakthroughs. Depending on who you ask, it has the potential to revolutionize many aspects of day-to-day life. At the same time, AI is causing grave concerns for the copyright industry.

The copyright angle is the topic of many debates and has already made its way to court in a few cases. It’s high on the agendas of governments around the world, which are poised to accommodate generative AI within copyright legislation.

House Hearing on Copyright and AI

Copyright concerns surrounding generative AI were explored in detail yesterday by U.S. lawmakers at the House Judiciary IP Subcommittee . This hearing is an early step in the legislative process but an important one at that.

Historically, debates around copyright legislation tend to be polarized. However, U.S. Representative and committee chairman, Darrell Issa, urged everyone to approach the discussion with a spirit of collaboration.

“Let us find common ground, seeking solutions that promote the flourishing of both creative expression and intellectual property protection. The stakes couldn’t be higher and the outcome will shape the future landscape of art, technology and copyright today,” Rep. Issa said.

Finding Middle Ground

The chairman stressed that, contrary to what some fear, Congress doesn’t plan to make hasty decisions or overreact. At the same time, stakeholders should not fear or hope for severe measures. In this context he mentioned Spain and Italy, which have taken quite extreme positions.

“Spain is moving forward with what I think might be a very restrictive interpretation. Japan believes, apparently, that all information that goes into the teaching is in fact free of any copyright restriction in its use.

“I do not believe that today’s discussion will take us down either road. I believe we will measure carefully and find middle ground that respects existing copyright law, while allowing the future of generative AI to flourish,” Rep. Issa added.

The chairman then handed the microphone to Subcommittee Ranking Member Hank Johnson, who started his opening statement by concurring that Congress is expected to come up with “reasonable” proposals, but that Japan’s position might be a little too open.

Serious Concerns

According to Representative Johnson, Generative AI has the potential to revolutionize a range of industries but there are serious copyright concerns that come with that, concerns that can’t go unaddressed.

“I am hard pressed to understand how a system that rests almost entirely on the works of others – and can be commercialized or used to develop commercial products – owes nothing, not even notice, to the owners of the works it uses to power its system,” Johnson said.

These and other comments make clear that Congress is expected to come up with some type of legislation. At the same time, the hearing also made it clear that not all AI inventions and products can be treated the same.

Lawmakers Listen to AI Drake

For example, it’s not hard to see how it can be a problem when AI mimics the voice and style of a musician. This includes the widely publicized Drake and The Weeknd track, which was actually played at yesterday’s hearing . Profiting from that work certainly causes concern.

But what if someone uses millions of publicly accessible poems to create a new book? Or millions of music tracks or photos to create unique works? Should all of these inputs be recognized or even compensated? Or is it a case of fair use?

The various witnesses shared different viewpoints on the matter which made clear that a balanced and reasonable approach by Congress would indeed make sense. However, this also means that stakeholders could be disappointed, because the solutions are either too strict or not strict enough, depending on position.

This ultimately means that there will be tensions. And indeed, we’re already seeing rightsholders and public advocacy groups calling for more or less restrictions.

Polarized Positions…

The Human Artistry Campaign , which was founded to represent rightsholders in the AI debates, was swift to chime on to stress the need for regulation. The same is true for RIAA’s Mitch Glazier and NMPA’s David Israelite, who wrote an op-ed ahead of the hearing.

“Creators and copyright owners must retain exclusive control over the ways their work is used. The moral invasion of AI engines that steal the core of a professional performer’s identity — the product of a lifetime’s hard work and dedication — without permission or pay cannot be tolerated,” they wrote.

At the other end of the spectrum are those that want to make sure that AI and innovation isn’t restricted too much, as that would hinder progress. This includes ReCreate Executive Director Joshua Lamel, who cautions against strict regulation.

“As with all change, this paradigm shift would reduce the power of legacy gatekeepers who seek to keep all the opportunities of generative AI while making baseless and boundless demands for compensation.

“Policymakers must remember that generative AI is grounded in Fair Use and other elements that are not subject to copyright protection,” Lamel adds.

The above is just a tiny overview of a single hearing and some of the responses. It’s the starting point of a discussion that will keep lawmakers, stakeholders, and the public busy for a while. Nobody knows where it will lead but heated debates are guaranteed.

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

Multi-point, ongoing collisions between rightsholders, pirate sites, pirates and copyright law, are what fuel our daily reporting. The pumps rarely run dry for long in these wars.

The polarized nature of the debate, which regularly pits decent law-abiding content creators against shadowy thieves hiding in the recesses of the web, is good for headlines but a hopeless anti-piracy tool.

Casual pirates, who represent the majority, routinely dismiss this type of messaging as either completely untrue or blatant propaganda. Yet when unfiltered piracy information leaks out unexpectedly, people suddenly develop an interest in what anti-piracy groups have to say.

Redacted Document Wasn’t Redacted

Many months ago, Japan’s Agency for Cultural Affairs published a document which contained a list of pirate manga sites generating high levels of traffic from within Japan. As the image below shows, the names of the sites were considered sensitive enough to completely redact. The redaction wasn’t effective.

Hovering a cursor over the blacked-out area revealed what should’ve been hidden and click led directly to the site considered most damaging to the home market in Japan.

That’s highly relevant information but when the Agency of Cultural Affairs was alerted to the buzz on social media, the information was immediately taken down.

The Case for Sharing More Information, Not Less

There’s a theory in anti-piracy circles that mentioning pirate sites by name makes them more popular. If we assume that’s the case, let’s see how that’s working out.

The slide with the unredacted text above covers the period June-July 2022. The slide below is from a more recent report covering September-October 2022. This time the names of the sites are properly redacted but we can still see data related to the site in the top spot.

In September 2022 the site had very little traffic but then a 23,642% surge over the next few weeks led to the site pulling in 61 million visits in October 2023 alone.

These massive figures may be linked to a site switching domains/brands but with these kinds of numbers, sites don’t stay secret for long. Simply mentioning a site’s name would have no effect but it would help people to understand the bigger picture.

Japan Sets The Standard on Transparency

Minor redaction issue aside, when it comes to sharing information, Japan deserves zero criticism. From anti-piracy strategies in operation today to those it hopes to develop in the future, the various companies and anti-piracy groups involved publish incredibly detailed reports, all available to the public on sites like bunka.go.jp .

Japan’s public yet understated reporting offers regular insight into a significant anti-piracy program that faces huge challenges but continues to progress. Open documents catalog progress to date, plans for the future, details of any setbacks, and concerns over looming threats.

Equally importantly, Japan’s reporting feels real; there’s no drama, and information isn’t put out selectively in a way that distorts the facts. In that respect these reports feel more like an education than a puzzle to unpack, after first discarding the marketing.

Overseas Players Dominate Local Market

The reports are compelling, including those that reveal that at any one point, seven of the top ten pirate sites targeting the Japanese market are believed to either have links or are based in Vietnam. Each month, citizens of Japan visit those sites at least 200 million times and recent reports reveal growing concern at this persistent overseas threat.

“Sites often drastically increase their traffic in just a short period of time. There is a sense of urgency that at any moment, access to these sites could explode and we could be back to the worst,” one reads.

“The reason for this is a sense of crisis, problems are piling up. The Vietnamese system…still no arrests have been made. Therefore, new sites from Vietnam are appearing one after another.”

Whether the situation will improve in Vietnam is unclear but anyone who wants a relatively unfiltered window into the action moving forward, the link is [redacted] .

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

Two years ago, Spanish-born movie tycoon Carlos Vasallo sued YouTube at a Florida federal court over various piracy-related claims .

The actor and producer own the rights to the world’s largest collection of Mexican and Latin American movies, many of which are illegally shared on YouTube.

The lawsuit accused YouTube of not doing enough to stop people from uploading pirated content. Those allegations aren’t new, but the movie tycoon also said that YouTube would not allow him to join the Content ID copyright protection program unless he agreed to specific terms, including a revenue share agreement.

Vasallo refused these terms and chose to send standard DMCA notices instead. YouTube processed them, as it should, but the movie tycoon complained that this did little to stop pirates. New copies were constantly uploaded and banned users reportedly returned under new aliases.

Motions of Summary Judgment

YouTube and Google vehemently disagreed with the copyright infringement allegations and filed a motion to dismiss. This was partially successful as the Florida federal court dropped the antitrust claims, but the infringement allegations remained.

As the case progressed, both parties submitted motions for summary judgment, which were filed under seal.

The movie tycoon alleged that, because YouTube only took down reported videos and failed to use its piracy filtering technology to find and voluntarily remove similar videos, the platform is liable for direct and secondary copyright infringement.

YouTube also submitted a motion for summary judgment to establish that it does nothing wrong. According to the company, the DMCA doesn’t require platforms to proactively monitor uploads, on the contrary. Also, the movie tycoon failed to provide any evidence that YouTube was aware of ‘non reported’ infringing videos.

Both motions for summary judgment landed on the desk of Magistrate Judge Edwin Torres, who issued a detailed report and recommendations yesterday. The Judge sides with YouTube and concludes that since the movie tycoon has no triable case, the lawsuit should be closed.

Monitoring Uploads

Under the DMCA, platforms such as YouTube are required to respond to takedown requests. In this case, there is little doubt that the video platform did so. However, the movie tycoon argued that it should have used its piracy filtering technology to find similar videos and remove these as well.

This piracy detection technology, as used by the Content ID system, is separate from the DMCA takedown process. According to Vasallo, however, YouTube can and should have deployed this to remove videos that were similar to the ones he reported though DMCA notices.

In other words, the film tycoon argues that YouTube was required to voluntarily find pirated videos on its platform. Because it failed to do so, the company should be held liable for copyright infringement.

This conclusion goes too far, according to Judge Torres, who notes that courts have repeatedly rejected the theory that online platforms have “red flag knowledge” of infringing content because they use filtering or monitoring tools. In fact, this argument goes directly against the DMCA.

“As multiple rulings have put it, requiring ISPs to use their technologies to identify infringing items out of their own initiative would be a violation of the DMCA’s non-monitoring and copyright policing principles.”

Online platforms are allowed to use monitoring tools, as YouTube does with its Content-ID system. However, this doesn’t mean that this automatically makes it aware of all potential copyright infringements on its platform.

“Thus, we find that Athos’ theory that specific knowledge of non-noticed infringing clips can be ascribed to Defendants by virtue of YouTube’s copyright management tools fails as a matter of law,” Judge Torres adds.

A Brick DMCA Wall

No matter how the movie tycoon puts it, he eventually runs “headlong against a brick wall erected by the DMCA,” according to Judge Torres. The DMCA simply doesn’t require YouTube to remove content that isn’t specifically identified.

“[C]harging YouTube with the affirmative obligation of going beyond the specific URLs identified in Plaintiff’s DMCA takedown requests would in effect shift from the copyright owner to the ISP the burdens of policing and identifying infringement on its systems.”

Interestingly, the situation in Europe is different. Local law requires large platforms to do more than just process takedown notices. However, Judge Torres doesn’t mention Europe, and focuses on the law his court is required to enforce.

While copyright holders may feel that online platforms should do more, that’s not a requirement under the DMCA.

“The question before this court is not what YouTube or other ISPs should be required to do, but whether YouTube’s acts are consistent with the statutory scheme set forth by the DMCA as currently enacted.

“And while Plaintiff would like for this court to substitute the existing DMCA ‘notice and take-down’ regime for an amorphous “notice and stay-down” mandate, we cannot do this just because it makes sense from a copyright holder’s perspective,” Judge Torres adds.

No Evidence, No Case

In addition to the finding that YouTube didn’t have red flag knowledge, the Judge also finds that the evidence lacking. Nothing on the record even suggests that YouTube or its employees were aware of any non-reported infringing activity.

“Here, Athos has failed to present any tangible evidence to establish that, had YouTube used its video-detection technology as it suggests, the software would have identified, blocked, or removed any of the specific clips-in-suit in dispute in this case. This evidentiary deficit is fatal to Athos’ case.”

To top things off, Judge Torres doesn’t see any evidence that YouTube could control the infringing activity it wasn’t aware of, or that it specifically profited from the alleged infringements.

The recommendation concludes that the court should grant YouTube and Google’s motion for summary judgment, establishing that it’s protected by the DMCA’s safe harbor. At the same time, the movie tycoon’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

In closing, it’s important to note that yesterday’s report and recommendation have yet to be taken over by the court and while that often happens, there are no guarantees. In any case, YouTube will surely see this as a preemptive victory.

—

A copy of the report and recommendation, issued by Florida federal court’s Magistrate Judge Edwin Torres, is available here (pdf)

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

Orders for ISPs to block sites on copyright infringement grounds used to be rare and controversial. Any imposition of ‘internet police’ duties angered ISPs; blocking wouldn’t end with pirate sites, some warned.

Court Orders ISPs to Block Uptobox

The launch of regulator ARCOM in early 2022 allowed France to block pirate sites on an industrial scale, and it wasted no time in doing so. Self-reported results hailed site-blocking measures as extremely effective and therefore totally justified.

ISPs now partner with rightsholders to ensure blocking goes smoothly, meaning the friction and fears of the past remain there. We’re informed that ISPs blocked 1,299 domain names under this system in 2022 but in common with the websites themselves, their names aren’t for public consumption.

Court processes leading to blocking are more open, a recent case against Z-Library , for example. Thanks to a report by French journalist Marc Rees this week, customers of local ISP Orange discovered why popular file-hosting site Uptobox was no longer accessible.

Movie Industry Targets Uptobox

According to SimilarWeb data, last month Uptobox received 10 million visits from French users. Give or take, that accounts for roughly a third of its 34 million visits in April. The site has been around since 2011 and gained popularity by making it easy for users to upload, store, and share files with others.

Uptobox has no search feature on the site but there’s no denying its popularity among pirates. There’s no money to be earned directly but users can earn points according to the popularity of their files. When they have accumulated enough, points can be exchanged for access to premium features, such as derestricted access to the site’s comprehensive API .

Almost inevitably, Uptobox became a candidate for blocking. On behalf of industry groups including National Federation of Film Distributors (FNEF) and several others, an investigation conducted by local anti-piracy group ALPA found 25,500 active download links on Uptobox, the majority offering unauthorized access to protected audiovisual works.

Access to that content was reportedly provided by “no less” than 113 third-party indexing sites, including Filmoflix, FilmGratuit, Wawacity and Zone-Téléchargement. All of these sites had previously been deemed infringing by the Tribunal de Paris , and responses to takedown notices issued by ALPA were described as “neither credible nor effective.”

Another Judgment, More Blocking

On March 29, 2023, five major ISPs – Orange, Bouygues Télécom, Free, SFR and SFR Fiber – were informed of the blocking application. The court handed down a judgment in favor of the movie groups on May 11 and Orange became the first ISP to implement the blocks, linforme reports.

The four remaining ISPs are expected to implement similar blocking in the coming days and maintain it for 18 months. Any costs incurred while blocking the domains listed below are not recoverable from the movie companies.

1. Uptobox.com
2. Uptostream.com
3. Uptobox.fr
4. Uptostream.com
5. Beta-uptobox.com
6. Uptostream.net

Whether the blocking order can be modified to include additional domains isn’t yet clear. Dynamic injunctions are becoming more common as rightsholders adapt to blocking countermeasures, so it’s highly likely rightsholders will seek to include additional domains. Blocking these six domains alone won’t hinder the site at all since DNS blocking is defeated in seconds.

Blocking Never Goes Wrong, Mostly

ARCOM’s blocking decisions are not for public consumption, so broader oversight and general accountability remain lacking. That has some people worried, especially after events reported last weekend.

According to a Le Monde report , Telegram’s ‘t.me’ domain was suddenly rendered inaccessible on Saturday after most ISPs in France were issued with blocking instructions.

The exact circumstances remain unclear but it appears that instead of requesting a block against a specific URL (https://t.me/specific-content-here), “human error” led to the blocking of t.me and everything behind it. As a result, all of Telegram remained inaccessible for several hours until the error was rectified.

A technical analysis of the blocking mechanism reveals that the aim of the blocking was to prevent serious crime. Due to the blunder, visitors who attempted to visit t.me were diverted to a government website which recorded their visit and linked it the crime in question.

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

Japanese manga comics have always been popular on pirate sites but, where other categories have seen stalled growth, manga piracy boomed .

This unauthorized activity has not gone unnoticed by publishers, who’ve made it clear that piracy will not be tolerated, wherever it takes place in the world.

Japan’s largest publisher Shueisha finds itself at the frontline of this battle. The company has taken a variety of legal actions, also in a U.S. court, where it hoped to find evidence against the operators of Manganato.com; thus far without result.

With more than 122 million monthly visits, Manganato is one of the largest piracy sites of its kind. In Japan, however, there are other sites that take the top spots. Several of these local favorites were targeted by a legal request filed at a U.S. court last week.

Shueisha Target ‘Pirate’ Sites

Shueisha obtained a DMCA subpoena at a California federal court which requires CDN provider Cloudflare to share all personal information it holds on the people who maintain the accounts of 13dl.to, takefile.link, novafile.org, wupfile.com, hexupload.net, and manga-zip.is.

These sites are all most popular in Japan and they have millions of monthly visitors. Earlier this month the publisher already asked Cloudflare to disable infringing copies of the Grand Jump magazine made available through these sites.

“We demand that you immediately disable access to the Infringing Work and cease any use, reproduction, and distribution of the Original Work. Specifically, we request that you remove or disable the Infringing Work from [the sites] or any of your system or services.”

Cloudflare typically doesn’t remove cached CDN content and that didn’t happen here either. Instead, Shueisha is now trying to identify the sites’ operators directly through the DMCA subpoena, which was swiftly signed off by a court clerk.

Cloudflare Must Share Customer Details

The subpoena requires Cloudflare to share the personal details of customers associated with these domains. This includes addresses, phone numbers, emails, payment details, hosting providers, IP-addresses, and various related activity timestamps.

Cloudflare typically complies with these types of requests but whether that will help Shueisha address its piracy problem depends on how useful the information is. After all, many pirate site operators do all they can to conceal their personal information.

These efforts can provide results, however. Three years ago, popular pirate site Mangastream disappeared after being targeted by a DMCA subpoena obtained by Shueisha.

At the time of writing all of the targeted sites remain online. That said, some progress has been made, as the infringing Grand Jump copies are no longer available on wupfile.com, hexupload.net, and manga-zip.is.

—

A copy of the subpoena request and all associated information, as filed by Shueisha, is available here (pdf)

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

The use of lawsuits to solve complex commercial disputes suggests that no amount of talking will ever produce the desired results.

For musician Maria Schneider, whose class action lawsuit against YouTube will head to a jury trial next month, the status quo and its alleged facilitator have been a constant topic of discussion for well over a decade.

What Do Whore Houses, Meth Labs, and YouTube Have in Common?

The riddle in the heading is almost seven years old, yet the closest answer to date is “you always end up paying for it.” That wasn’t what Maria Schneider had in mind, according to her 2016 Music Tech Policy piece, which begins with a surprise apology.

“OK, I know: that title really hits below the belt. I apologize. After all, it’s not fair to legal whorehouses that pay their share of taxes to lump them with meth labs and YouTube,” Schneider wrote.

“When a nail salon or spa has a back room for illegal prostitution, we shut down the business. When a dry cleaning plant is a front for a crystal meth lab, the government comes in with guns ablazing.

“Businesses that cover for illegal activity get boarded up and their owners thrown in the slammer. Just because a business carries on facade of legal activity — even offering us a good value from the facade — doesn’t mean we turn a blind eye to the criminality going on.”

Laundering Pirate Content or Solving Problems?

Schneider has never shied away from criticizing YouTube’s business model or that of its owner, Google/Alphabet. In a submission to the U.S. Copyright Office in 2016, the seven-time Grammy winner accused YouTube of “fermenting a veritable pirate orgy ” among its users while “dismantling copyright from the inside, like a flesh-eating virus.”

Using less colorful terminology, the major recording labels and hundreds of artists expressed similar sentiments. “At its worst, the DMCA safe harbors have become a business plan for profiting off of stolen content,” they wrote. “At best, the system is a de facto government subsidy enriching some digital services at the expense of creators.”

Some subsidy. Between July 2021 and June 2022, YouTube paid over $6 billion to the music industry, using a system that’s hardly changed since being labeled as “criminal.”

Official content creator uploads aside, regular users of YouTube upload content they’re supposed to own, and from there, YouTube monetizes it within the boundaries of licensing agreements and broader law. When copyright holders report uploaded content as infringing, YouTube follows the DMCA and takes the content down.

This method meets the requirements of copyright law but generates no money for rightsholders. An alternative process does, however.

When rightsholders use YouTube’s Content ID, the system identifies unlicensed uploads, with removal just one of several options. Monetizing content is another, and as a result, many rightsholders today have stopped sending takedown notices and receive checks from YouTube instead.

Access Denied

Schneider’s 2020 class action lawsuit claims that when smaller artists ask for permission to use Content ID, YouTube rejects their applications and denies access to associated anti-piracy tools . Meanwhile, alleged infringers arguably benefit from Content ID matches.

The complaint alleges that YouTube users who repeatedly upload infringing content are ‘repeat infringers’ who should have their YouTube accounts terminated. Instead, YouTube’s Content ID system allegedly provides them with cover. According to the plaintiffs, YouTube’s failure to terminate these repeat infringers disqualifies the company from safe harbor protection under the DMCA.

Viewed differently, Content ID immediately licenses uploaded content and funnels revenue to the rightsholder based on pre-agreed terms. In 2021, 98% of all copyright complaints handled by YouTube were processed by Content ID.

Major recording labels’ criticism of YouTube has been less evident in recent years, broadly coinciding with increased YouTube revenue. No recording labels or artists joined Schneider’s lawsuit, despite being those most likely to benefit from a favorable outcome.

As Content ID users already, the lawsuit wasn’t a great fit for the labels. YouTube’s revelation – that Schneider had also benefited from Content ID via a deal with her publisher – was unexpected. In a controversial case that has exposed strengths, weaknesses and cynical tactics on both sides, it didn’t come as a surprise.

Gearing Up For Trial

The trial will play out at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, from 09:00 on June 12, 2023. A joint pre-trial statement and individual trial briefs reflect the extraordinary legal resources expended by the parties over the last three years.

The plaintiffs assert claims against YouTube for violations of the Copyright Act (direct, contributory and vicarious infringement) and violations of 17 U.S.C. § 1202 , which prohibits the removal of Copyright Management Information.

YouTube’s brief states that the plaintiffs contend they will prove “317 separate acts of infringement” before the jury. YouTube says that despite its requests, the plaintiffs are playing “hide-the-ball” by refusing to identify any of them. YouTube also provides a downbeat assessment of what the case amounts to.

“Liability issues aside, it is also important to highlight what remains in dispute regarding Plaintiffs’ damages claims. Plaintiffs are seeking roughly $23 in revenue per work, so even if they prevail on every one of their 317 infringement claims, they would be seeking roughly $7,300 in total gross revenue…,” YouTube notes.

YouTube says it has defenses for all claims, including protection under the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA, through fair use, express licenses , and time-barred claims.

Interestingly, YouTube says that it won’t pursue a DMCA safe harbor defense if the court denies a pending class-certification motion and the matter proceeds as an individual action instead. If YouTube does attempt a safe harbor defense, the plaintiffs insist that YouTube will fail. One of the requirements for protection is the reasonable implementation of a repeat infringer policy; not the case here, the plaintiffs claim.

“[YouTube’s] exclusion of private and unlisted videos and search result de-duplication prevents copyright owners from gathering information necessary to submit takedown requests; it fails to issue copyright strikes for the billions of infringements identified by Content ID; it assesses strikes against channels, not users, even though one user can have multiple channels,” their brief reads.

Don’t Forget the Bogus DMCA Notices

Roughly a year into what is now a three-year litigation project, the plaintiffs were still alleging mass copyright infringement on YouTube but noting that without access to Content ID, precise identification of infringement would remain problematic .

When the lawsuit was first filed in June 2020, an entity called Pirate Monitor Ltd appeared alongside Schneider, claiming that it owned the copyright to several movies illegally uploaded to YouTube. The company claimed that after being denied access to Content ID, it was forced into a “cumbersome, inaccurate, and flawed ‘manual’ process” that benefited YouTube’s “money-making machine.”

A YouTube investigation later alleged that Pirate Monitor used bogus accounts to upload its own videos and then used DMCA notices to take them down, claiming infringement of its rights. YouTube said this was a ploy to gain fraudulent access to Content ID management tools.

More Complexity, More Denial

YouTube continued to produce additional evidence to back up its fraud allegations and then followed up with a counterclaim against Pirate Monitor Ltd and alleged sole-owner, Gábor Csupó.

Mr. Csupó is a five-time Emmy award-winning producer and director, and the creator of the animated series Rugrats. He denies being involved in the submission of 1,975 bogus notices sent to YouTube. Csupó says that Pirate Monitor Ltd was dormant then, so he can’t be held liable.

Agents or sub-agents of another company, Intellectual Property LLC, allegedly sent the notices. Alternatively, it may have been agents or sub-agents of another company called MegaFilm. As a matter of law, Csupó insists he’s not responsible for the companies or their agents. Csupó further insists that since YouTube “encourages infringement,” the company has “unclean hands.”

Proposed Jury Instructions

Highly competent intellectual property attorneys have examined every detail of this complex case for almost three years. They remain fundamentally opposed.

If the plaintiffs’ proposal succeeds, a jury of ordinary citizens will hear 50 hours of evidence, split equally between the parties. If YouTube’s proposal is preferred, they will listen to just 24 hours of evidence overall before rendering their verdict.

The jury will receive guidance from District Judge James Donato, who will begin by informing the jury of their duty, as detailed in the proposed jury instructions.

“It is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence in the case. To those facts you will apply the law as I give it to you. You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you agree with it or not. And you must not be influenced by any personal likes or dislikes, opinions, prejudices, or sympathy. That means that you must decide the case solely on the evidence before you. You will recall that you took an oath to do so,” the Judge will say.

Several pages of undisputed standard instructions will follow the above. From page 17 onwards the majority of the proposed jury instructions on the docket are still marked as disputed, which remains the case right to the very end, on page 243.

The Stakes Are High

YouTube believes it will prevail but in the event it does not, the plaintiffs say they are entitled to actual or statutory damages for each infringed work, in the range of $750 to $150,000 per work. More ominously, the plaintiffs will also seek the following:

– An order enjoining YouTube from withholding any known [content] match of 10 seconds or more in length, for any reference file generated from a video that was the subject of a successful DMCA takedown notice from the copyright claimants identified in such notices

– An order directing YouTube to provide, to any copyright owner who provides YouTube with a reference file, all matches longer than 10 seconds in length to any pre-existing video on YouTube and any video subsequently uploaded to YouTube

The plaintiffs may not get what they’re asking for, even if their lawsuit is successful. But if they do, the requests above may amount to a game-changing event underpinning the Holy Grail – a takedown and staydown regime.

Documents referenced above are available here ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , pdf)

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

Most artists and music labels share their music with the public on YouTube, free of charge.

The popular video platform has become an important promotional channel that brings in billions of dollars of advertising revenue every year.

The success story has a downside, however. Millions of people use so-called stream-ripping websites to download music tracks from YouTube, without permission. YouTube’s terms and service prohibit this activity but there are hundreds of online tools through which people can easily ‘rip’ and download content from the site.

Music companies, often represented by the RIAA, are actively cracking down on what they see as major piracy threat. Some operators of these stream-ripping tools disagree, pointing at the variety of legal use cases instead.

Yout vs. RIAA

At the end of 2020, the operator of one of the largest stream-rippers took matters into his own hands. Instead of hiding in the shadows like some of his competitors, Yout.com owner Johnathan Nader sued the RIAA , asking a federal court in Connecticut to declare his service non-infringing.

Last fall, the district court decided to dismiss the matter, handing a win to the RIAA . Judge Stefan Underhill ultimately concluded that Yout had failed to show that it doesn’t circumvent YouTube’s technological protection measures. This also rendered the associated defamation and business disparagement claims moot.

Yout did not give up on the case. Nader opted to appeal the verdict as he believes that YouTube rippers don’t violate the DMCA. After the RIAA’s request for legal fees was denied , Yout’s attorneys filed their opening brief at the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in February.

Key Questions

This case essentially revolves around two questions, to which both parties have completely different answers. These questions will ultimately determine whether Yout and similar stream-ripping services operate legally.

– Does YouTube employ a technological measure that effectively controls access to copyrighted works?

– If the answer is yes, does the Yout service circumvent these controls?

In its opening brief, Yout previously went into great detail to show that YouTube doesn’t have any effective protection measures. The stream-ripper wasn’t alone in this assessment; the site received support from both GitHub and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), who filed supportive Amicus Curiae briefs.

Copyright Alliance Backs RIAA

Earlier this month, the RIAA replied to these arguments in a detailed answering brief. According to the music industry group, Yout is an “illicit stream-ripping service” that effectively allows people to “bypass YouTube’s technological restrictions” that prevent downloading of works streamed through YouTube.

The RIAA is not alone in this assessment. Late last week, the Copyright Alliance submitted an amicus curiae brief in support, asking the Court of Appeals not to change the lower court’s verdict.

The Copyright Alliance is a non-profit that represents rightsholders across the board and has strong connections with industry groups. In its amicus brief, the public interest group warns that reversing the current court ruling will have devastating consequences.

“Yout’s illegal, stream-ripping software is a significant threat to copyright holders and ultimately the public. If this Court adopts the arguments of Yout and its amici, protection for numerous business models will be devastated, resulting in less, not more, public access to copyrighted works,” the Copyright Alliance writes.

Free Expression

The Copyright Alliance provides a detailed overview of the DMCA’s legal history and says that Congress intended Section 1201’s ‘circumvention’ safeguards to protect free expression, not to harm it.

Supporters of YouTube downloading tools may argue that the technology can foster creativity, but the Copyright Alliance argues the opposite. They believe that unbridled access to copyrighted content will ultimately lead to less output from creators, hurting free expression.

“Massive infringement impedes free expression in several ways. Deprived of a fair return, copyright owners have less incentive to create and to disseminate expressive works, especially in digital formats.

“Moreover, the specter of rampant piracy inhibits copyright holders from creating or partnering with new platforms and services that can offer the consuming public broader access to creative works,” the Alliance adds.

‘Rube Goldberg-like Process’

The brief stresses that Yout clearly violates the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision and that all counterarguments fall flat. This includes the notion that YouTube’s technical protection measures are not at all effective.

The stream-ripper backed up this point by showing that anyone can easily download YouTube audio and video through a regular browser, without the need for special tools. However, this ‘ Rube Goldberg-like ‘ multi-step process doesn’t help its argument, the Copyright Alliance notes.

“Yout’s contrived attempt to show that YouTube users already have access to copyrighted works via a convoluted, Rube Goldberg-like process actually refutes the ‘lack of effectiveness’ argument.

“Without question, Yout’s service flouts the express terms and the crucial purpose of Section 1201, all to the ultimate detriment of the consumer,” the brief adds.

‘Rehashing Stale Arguments’

Yout and the amicus brief from EFF also stressed that stream-ripper tools have many legal and fair use purposes. For example, they are vital for some reporters and useful to creatives who use them for future work.

The stream-ripper argued that its service can be equated to a video recorder, citing the Betamax case . Downloading content from YouTube is nothing more than “time shifting”.

The Copyright Alliance refutes these arguments as well, pointing out that they fall flat as these lines of reasoning have been repeatedly defeated in courts.

“The position of Yout and EFF in this lawsuit is nothing more than another in a decades-long pattern of raising legally baseless court challenges to the DMCA,” the Alliance writes. “These arguments merely rehash stale, erroneous arguments that courts have rejected for decades.”

Whether the appellate court will agree with these arguments has yet to be seen. While circumvention cases are not new, none of these U.S.-based cases have looked at Youtube-ripping in detail.

—

A copy of the Copyright Alliance’s Amicus Curiae brief calling for an affirmation of the lower court’s decision in favor of the RIAA is available here (pdf)

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

There’s no denying that the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) has been rather successful over the past few years.

The anti-piracy group, which represents prominent rightsholders such as Apple, the BBC, Canal+, Disney, Sky, Netflix, and Warner Bros, systematically hunts down key piracy players and works to shut them down.

ACE expanded its reach once again this week when it added sports streaming service DAZN to its roster . This new member increases the group’s focus on sites and services that offer pirated live sports.

Millions of Views

The expansion will likely lead to more shutdowns and domain name seizures going forward. ACE typically redirects these domains to its dedicated “ Watch Legally ” page, which advises visitors where they can access licensed services.

This redirect strategy is quite successful as the ACE website enjoys millions of visits per month. A large percentage of this audience consists of people who were expecting to visit a pirate site, but were redirected to ACE instead.

In addition to the free traffic, Google has also rewarded the alliance with a top ranking in search results, meaning that the ‘Watch Legally’ page would show up in the top results for relevant search queries.

Rival Takedown

As things stand today, that’s no longer the case. After the “Watch Legally” page was removed from Google search, visitors see the following note at the bottom of the results.

In response to a recent takedown notice, Google removed ACE’s “Watch Legally” page for alleged copyright infringement. This action was taken at the behest of Indian anti-piracy outfit AiPlex.

The ACE page was repeatedly flagged by AiPlex in recent weeks. In this notice , for example, it’s accused of distributing a pirated copy of the film ‘Virgin Bhanupriya,’ together with sites such as foumovies.pw, afilmyhit.cafe, and yomovies.bid.

Redirected Trouble

Why AiPlex flagged a page that’s designed to drive traffic to legal services is unclear. The company didn’t immediately reply to our request for comment but we have a hunch that might explain the series of inaccurate takedown notices.

As we mentioned earlier, ACE has a habit of redirecting seized pirate domain names to its own website. If AiPlex found an older piracy link that redirected to ACE, and then reported the ACE site to Google without carrying out any checks, that could explain the erroneous removal.

Whatever the reason, AiPlex may want to update its systems to prevent similar trouble going forward. At the same time, ACE could send a DMCA counternotice to Google if it wants to be relisted.

Of course, this isn’t the first time that legal streaming options have been flagged as infringing; it happens more often than you’d think. For example, justwatch.com has been flagged more than 53,000 times . Luckily, Google identified most of these inaccurate notices.

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

According to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), the availability of unlicensed music “remains an issue for the
whole music ecosystem.”

In its 2022 ‘Engaging With Music’ report, IFPI estimates that almost a third of people say they have used illegal or unlicensed methods to download and listen to music. The major threat in today’s market has been growing for many years, mainly because it’s so quick and easy.

What is Stream-Ripping and How Does it Work?

The official explanation from IFPI reads as follows: Stream ripping is the illegal practice of creating a downloadable file from content that is available to stream online. It is now the most prevalent form of online music copyright infringement.

While the industry group’s definition is broad enough to encompass all streaming services offering licensed content, a more specific description for the lion’s share of related piracy is carried out by people using YouTube-ripping tools.

These are available in software form for local use but the most simple and popular option is to visit a website set up for the job. Given their number and popularity, a basic Google search usually throws up plenty of options, but not always.

Legal Action

Users in some regions may find that their ISP blocks access to some YouTube-ripping platforms. This is the result of legal action taken by the major recording labels in several countries, where courts had to determine the legality of the platforms based on functionality, technical issues, conduct, and the likelihood that most visitors use them to infringe copyright.

Denmark was the first country in the world to declare stream-ripping illegal and currently blocks sites with flvto, ytmp3, yt1s y2mate, and savefrom branding, among others. Similar brands appear in legal documents relating to a High Court ruling in the UK .

The same is broadly true for blocking action in Australia while a more recent blocking injunction in India targets 18 sets of domains, with each set consisting of often multiple domains linked to the same platform or perceived ownership.

Small Domain Names, Extraordinary Traffic

Given that domain hopping and multiple domains pointing to the same infrastructure is common, traffic to sites can be more difficult to calculate than usual. YouTube-ripping site yt1s operates from several domains but on its own, the .com variant is good for 15 million visits per month. 15% of the site’s traffic comes from India, where it’s supposed to be blocked.

Y2mate is much, much bigger. Just one of its domains received more than 117 million visits last month. Another y2mate-branded domain receives almost 40% of its 3 million visits each month from India, where some y2mate domains are blocked – but not this one.

Another y2mate variant currently enjoying 22 million visits per month now gets 15% of its traffic from the UK where other rippers are blocked, but not this one.

Other ripping site brands, which in some cases are linked to other popular brands, also enjoy huge traffic. Savefrom, for example, which received 113 million visits last month alone. And then there’s this monster, a ripping platform that receives almost four times more visits than Fmovies, which in itself is no slouch at almost 92 million per month.

Traffic aside, the ssyoutube.com domain is interesting for other reasons too.

SSYoutube Evades Takedown Notices

While the music industry considers YouTube-ripping sites illegal, ssyoutube gets almost zero attention in Google’s Transparency Report due to its setup. The domain has been targeted in just seven requests with just eight of its URLs removed since 2018.

As the image above shows, ssyoutube has an aversion to visitors from the UK; it appears to deliberately block them. Y2mate took similar action in 2021 , possibly due to music industry legal pressure but nothing was confirmed officially in public.

While few regular DMCA notices target ssyoutube, the UK’s BPI has filed many DMCA anti-circumvention notices against the platform, including some that show links with savefrom, a platform mentioned earlier. But does any of this time, effort and money amount to any more than a sticking plaster?

So Who is To Blame and What Can Be Done?

The fact that the music industry has made virtually all of its content available at a fair price (or free) means that the ripping phenomenon cannot be attributed to the labels failing to read the market. Bluntly, it’s difficult to see what more could’ve been done.

This is also costing the labels a lot of money. In addition to effort already expended on general anti-piracy work such as DMCA notifications, per-country site-blocking injunctions are very expensive. When treading new ground on the circumvention issues surrounding YouTube-ripping platforms, even more so. But the legal costs don’t stop there.

Seemingly with no options left, the major labels are taking legal action against DNS providers like Quad9 and Cloudflare , insisting that somehow they’re to blame for extraordinary levels of piracy carried out by stream-ripping sites and their users.

A hosting provider in Germany also faces legal pressure for simply linking to youtube-dl, the software coincidentally used by many ripping sites today. Will pushing the blame onto yet another intermediary solve this problem?

So What About YouTube?

When huge ‘pirate’ platforms are discussed along with the legalities of stream-ripping and associated circumvention of technological measures, only rarely is YouTube suggested as a party to a widening conflict prepared to suck in any and all intermediaries.

If DNS providers or hosting companies “aren’t doing enough” to tackle piracy carried out by people they have nothing to do with, does that mean that YouTube is next? Despite all the talk about systems that “effectively control access” to a copyrighted work, YouTube’s ‘rolling cipher’ is by no means effective.

Pragmatically speaking, legal interpretations that attempt to redefine the original meaning of the word “effective” to mean something else under the DMCA, are all well and good, and may win a case here and there. But does wordplay stop people from ripping billions of tracks from YouTube and copying them to their machines?

It’s unlikely that the reasons for this current situation will find themselves aired in public but in effect – effectively – YouTube hosts almost every song in the world, on a platform that has no useful copy protection mechanism, and is actually licensed to do so.

A third of a billion visits to one site in one month is pretty wild, but nowhere near as wild as chasing down DNS providers and hosts while claiming they aren’t doing their bit to prevent piracy.

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