Day in and day out, millions of people use pirate sites and services to download or stream movies and TV shows.

In recent years, a large percentage of this activity has taken place through apps that run on Android, the dominant operating system for phones and tablets globally.

These pirate apps come and go, but over the past year, Pikashow has made quite a name for itself. Word-of-mouth advertising helped the app to break through, and after becoming the official sponsor of the Afghan cricket team during Asia Cup 2022, its profile went mainstream.

PikaShow Crackdown

That sponsorship deal should never have happened and rightsholders have been trying to put the genie back in the bottle ever since. The Motion Picture Association, for example, listed PikaShow as one of the main piracy threats in its advice to the U.S. Trade Representative.

“[T]he PikaShow app has been downloaded over 10 million times across various mobile application stores and Telegram,” MPA wrote, adding that the operator is believed to be located in India.

In India, meanwhile, police weren’t sitting around either. Last year, Disney Star referred the app to the authorities, alleging various crimes under computer abuse and copyright laws. After an initial criminal complaint failed to produce the desired result, local police eventually arrested a suspect two weeks ago.

The man, who was identified as a college student, stands accused of illegally streaming Star India and Disney+ Hotstar content via PikaShow, while monetizing those pirate streams through advertisements.

While this sounds like a major breakthrough, it’s unclear whether the suspect is indeed one of the kingpins. What we do know is that PikaShow apps remain widely available. In fact, with all the press attention, the brand may have even become more popular than before.

DMCA Takedown Collateral

This is obviously a major disappointment for rightsholders working around the clock to contain the problem. This includes sending takedown notices to Google, urging the search engine to remove infringing PikaShow-related results.

Unfortunately, these DMCA notices are not without issues. Over the past weeks, multiple anti-piracy outfits and rightsholders have tried to remove links to our PikaShow news coverage.

The notice above was sent by MarkScan on behalf of Disney. While some of the reported links may lead visitors to the pirate app, our article about the arrested student certainly doesn’t. MarkScan also sent another takedown notice that reports the same news article, asking Google to take it down.

The Indian anti-piracy outfit is a familiar name and has reported legal content before, including that of its own clients . In addition, MarkScan employees were previously arrested after they allegedly masqueraded as competing anti-piracy firm to steal clients.

More Mistakes

Unfortunately, MarkScan is not the only company reporting our news coverage as ‘copyright infringing’. The Disney-owned platform Novi Digital Entertainment also flagged the same link directly.

On top, a company with the prestigious name ‘Copyright Integrity International’ also targeted our news article, ostensibly on behalf of Cricket Australia . The same governing cricket body also decided to boycot Afghanistan matches recently, but the PikaShow sponsorship isn’t provided as a reason there.

Needless to say, we are not pleased with these inaccurate takedowns. Luckily, however, Google is not convinced by them either, as all DMCA removal requests have been rejected.

The same is true for a recent takedown request , sent on behalf of Warner Bros, that targets our news coverage on the leaked “House of the Dragon” season finale.

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

In May 2018, a massive copyright infringement lawsuit targeted PrimeStreams, one of the most recognizable pirate IPTV brands ever to hit the market.

Filed in a Kentucky court, the complaint saw U.S. broadcaster DISH Network and streaming platform Sling TV target alleged PrimeStreams operators Daniel Scroggins and Steven Daugherty, plus corporate entity Dscroggs Investments LLC.

Two Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

The foundations of the complaint were straightforward. After bypassing or disabling security measures (DRM) deployed by Sling to prevent piracy, the defendants allegedly accessed and then redistributed streams in violation of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision and the Federal Communications Act.

The complaint further alleged that resellers, including the well-known ‘Firesticksteve’, helped to ensure a steady flow of customers to PrimeStreams. In October 2022, DISH filed a second lawsuit against IPTV service KTV Streams.

The complaint alleged that after PrimeStreams had circumvented Sling’s DRM, KTV resold the resulting streams to its own customers. In common with the main lawsuit, evidence appeared to be piled sky-high.

In both cases, damages were set to run into tens of millions of dollars, and DISH was explicit that permanent injunctions were required to prevent further infringement.

KTV Case Quietly Dismissed

On Tuesday this week, seemingly out of nowhere, DISH dismissed its lawsuit against the alleged operator of KTV Streams. Citing a confidential settlement agreement between the parties, the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice , meaning that it cannot be refiled.

Settling a legal dispute with an agreement can make perfect sense. Costs can build up extremely quickly and may take some defendants by surprise. If defendants happen to have something the plaintiffs want – information, for example – that could encourage a meeting of minds and a mutually beneficial end to hostilities.

When the plaintiffs are in the driving seat in piracy cases, settlement agreements are often used as publicity tools. While the specifics are nearly always confidential, a headline-grabbing settlement amount, usually in the millions of dollars, is useful for deterrent messaging: We settled this case, but look how painful it was for the defendants , the underlying tone tends to suggest.

This can even be the case when the terms of a private agreement dictate that, effectively, nothing will get paid. What plaintiffs nearly always want, however, is a legal agreement that infringers won’t simply start up again. For that reason, plaintiffs usually request an injunction, because having come this far, why wouldn’t they?

In the KTV case there has been no announcement and no formal injunction. There may well have been a private agreement not to infringe in future, but that’s not usually how these cases go. ( pdf ) .

PrimeStreams Lawsuit Also Dismissed

A few hours after a settlement was announced in the KTV case, the lawsuit against PrimeStreams was also dismissed. The circumstances as presented on the docket, are more or less identical. The notice of settlement and dismissal cites a confidential settlement agreement that “fully resolves the pending action” against all defendants.

Given the prominent status of PrimeStreams in the market, the scale of the evidence presented by the plaintiffs thus far, the absence of a court-issued injunction, and a dismissal with prejudice (lawsuit cannot be refiled), this stands out as a rather lackluster ending in place of what could’ve been a spectacular finale. When combined, the overall impression suggests that something may have gone wrong.

Both Dockets May Offer Clues

When lawsuits end like this, obtaining definitive proof of the circumstances ranges from difficult to all but impossible. Analyzing information already made available to the public is often all that remains, but that can still offer some interesting angles.

On November 11, 2022, Steve Daugherty (aka Firesticksteve) filed a motion to dismiss. In a nutshell, the complaint alleged he was co-owner of PrimeStreams and that he conducted business in Kentucky where the lawsuit was filed.

In a sworn affidavit, Daugherty denied both allegations. On December 9, 2022, DISH filed its response indicating that its position had not unchanged. The court should deny the motion, the company said ( pdf ) .

A declaration submitted by private investigator Bert Eichhorn, in his capacity as Director of Field Security and Investigations at NagraStar, reveals many intimate details of PrimeStreams’ operations, including two financial transactions of $471,972 and $780,989, and another in excess of $320,000.

These are interesting details but unhelpful in determining why the lawsuits were dismissed. If anything, they only serve to deepen the mystery.

Motion to File Amended Complaint

After concluding that it had enough evidence, on December 19, 2022, DISH informed the court that it intended to add new defendants (Brian Poynter and his company Brian P. Ventures LLC) in its upcoming first amended complaint. While that’s certainly notable, something else catches the eye.

In the original complaint, DISH claimed that SmoothStreams bypassed or disabled security measures deployed on the Sling streaming service to gain access to copyright-protected content. The defendants illegally accessed streams and redistributed them to the public in violation of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision.

These fundamental claims, apparently supported by ample evidence, suddenly became so irrelevant that they should be completely removed from the complaint.

No Longer Pursuing Allegations of Direct Circumvention

“In the proposed amended complaint, Plaintiffs withdraw their circumvention claim brought under 17 U.S.C. 1201 (a)(l) of the DMCA. Evidence received to date supports that claim, including Scroggins having asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when asked to explain how television channels are acquired and transmitted on the PrimeStreams service,” the plaintiffs’ motion reads.

“However, litigating this claim would be unnecessary given Plaintiffs’ additional DMCA claim and FCA claims that also prohibit Defendants’ wrongful conduct and provide for comparable, if not greater, relief.”

Rather than pursuing its original claim under 17 U.S. Code § 1201 (a)(l), which relates to direct circumvention of Sling’s technological measures, DISH said it would rely on 17 U.S. Code § 1201 (a)(2). This relates to the manufacture or supply of technology primarily designed for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure.

In this case, that means selling pirate IPTV subscriptions. It’s still illegal, of course, but having claimed that the defendants actually circumvented Sling’s content protection systems, including in a declaration filed just days earlier, this late switch seems somewhat unusual.

Events Leading Up to KTV Lawsuit Dismissal

On January 4, 2023, a month before the entire action was dismissed, the defendant in the KTV lawsuit asked the court for more time to answer the DISH complaint. The motion notes that the claims in his case are “closely tied” to the claims in the PrimeStreams case, and then this:

“More specifically, the deposition of a key witness in this dispute, Richard Rago, is scheduled to take place in the Kentucky litigation tomorrow, January 5, 2023. Mr. Rago’s testimony likely will have a significant impact on Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendant’s defenses and/or counterclaims, as well as the potential resolution of this matter as a whole.”

So who is Richard Rago and more importantly, why was his testimony so important? Publicly available information suggests that Mr. Rago may have previously acted as an advisor/negotiator on issues related to debt in piracy cases. The MPA mentioned their legal team having contact with a person of the same name back in 2019, in a separate lawsuit against another IPTV service, SetTV.

SetTV had previously been sued by DISH, with the warring parties eventually entering into an agreement that would see DISH walk away with a $90 million damages award and a permanent injunction.

What happened during Mr. Rago’s deposition or why he even became involved in the PrimeStreams cases is unknown. Nothing specific appeared on the docket, and since the lawsuit has been completely dismissed and can’t be filed again, further information seems unlikely to surface in public.

All we can say for sure is that for some reason, DISH sought permission to withdraw its lead circumvention claim on December 19, 2022, but never actually amended its complaint. The deposition was scheduled for January 5, 2023, and nothing appeared on the docket until both cases were dismissed on February 7, 2023, ( pdf ) .

In today’s climate, lawsuits supported by considerable evidence, against accessible defendants, rarely end in a settlement without a headline dollar amount and a permanent injunction. To be dismissed with prejudice without either simply puts a cherry on top.

It’s hard to imagine what type of event could lead to this kind of outcome, but whatever it was, it seems to have solved all problems, in two lawsuits, in one swoop. The fact that the lawsuits can’t be refiled is nothing less than extraordinary.

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

In 2020, YouTube ripper Yout.com sued the RIAA , asking a Connecticut district court to declare that the site does not violate the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision.

The music group had previously used DMCA takedown notices to remove many of Yout’s appearances in Google’s search results. This had a significant impact on revenues, the site argued, adding that it always believed it wasn’t breaking any laws and hoped the court would agree.

Dismissal and Appeal

Last October, the Connecticut district court concluded that Yout had failed to show that it doesn’t circumvent YouTube’s technological protection measures. As such, it could be breaking the law.

Yout operator Johnathan Nader opted to appeal the decision. Nader’s attorneys filed their opening brief last week at the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, asking it to reverse the lower court’s decision.

The YouTube ripper is not the only party calling for a reversal. Yesterday, Microsoft-owned developer platform GitHub submitted an amicus brief that argues for the same. And in a separate filing, the EFF also agrees that the lower court’s decision should be overturned.

GitHub’s Amicus Brief

GitHub’s brief starts by pointing out that the company takes no position on the ultimate resolution of this appeal, nor does it side with all of Yout’s arguments. However, it does believe that the lower court’s interpretation of the DMCA is dangerous.

The district court held that stream rippers can violate the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision. The court noted that these tools allow people to download video and audio from YouTube, despite the streaming platform’s lack of a download button.

According to GitHub, this conclusion is premature, dangerous, and places other software types at risk.

“[T]he district court’s expansive interpretation of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision compels GitHub to point out how the court’s rationale needlessly threatens countless other software tools in widespread use,” GitHub writes.

The developer platform is not new to this issue. The RIAA previously tried to remove the open-source software youtube-dl – upon which Yout.com relies – from its platform. After initially removing it, GitHub later decided to reinstate the project , arguing that it doesn’t violate the DMCA.

In the present lawsuit, GitHub reiterates that stream-ripping tools should not be outlawed. The fact that YouTube doesn’t have a download button doesn’t mean that tools that enable people to download videos circumvent technological access restrictions.

“YouTube’s decision not to provide its own ‘download’ button, however, is not a restriction on access to works. It merely affects how users experience them,” GitHub writes.

If the court order is allowed to stand, GitHub warns that a broad group of developers could be exposed to criminal liability, effectively chilling technological innovation.

“The district court’s expansive interpretation is particularly alarming because, unlike most copyright provisions, the DMCA imposes criminal penalties. At a minimum, those penalties underscore the importance of rejecting a construction that sweeps in a broad range of widely accepted conduct.”

Browser Extensions, Screen Readers, Ad-Blockers and More

YouTube download tools are not the only types of software at risk, according to GitHub. There are many others that affect ‘how users experience’ online websites. These could also be seen as problematic, based on the district court’s expansive interpretation of the DMCA.

GitHub lists several examples, including browser extensions such as ‘Dark Reader,’ ‘Google Translate,’ and ‘OpenDyslexic’. The same also applies to screen readers, ad blockers, and media player software such as VLC, which plays YouTube videos outside of a web browser.

These widely accepted tools could put their creators at risk if the DMCA is interpreted too strictly, GitHub warns.

“On the district court’s erroneous theory, the developers who offer those widely embraced applications could be criminals facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines or years in prison.”

EFF’s Amicus Brief

The Electronic Frontier Foundation ( EFF ) also submitted an amicus curiae brief yesterday. The digital rights group takes interest in copyright cases, particularly when they get in the way of people’s ability to freely use technology.

In this instance, EFF points out that stream-rippers such as Yout.com provide a neutral technology with plenty of legal uses. They can be used for infringing purposes, but that’s also true for existing technologies – the printing press, for example.

“Like every reproduction technology — from the printing press to the smartphone — these programs, colloquially called ‘streamrippers,’ have important lawful uses as well as infringing ones.

“Video creators, educators, journalists, and human rights organizations all depend on the ability to make copies of user-uploaded videos,” EFF adds.

In common with GitHub, EFF notes that the absence of a download button on YouTube doesn’t imply that download tools automatically violate the DMCA, especially when there are no effective download restrictions on the platform.

‘No Encryption’

The DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision is aimed at tools that bypass effective technological access restrictions. That doesn’t apply to YouTube’s Javascript-based code, EFF argues.

“The YouTube website code at issue in this case is different: it was not clearly designed to limit access to videos, or the ability to copy them. YouTube videos arrive at a viewer’s device with no encryption or scrambling. No login, password, key, or other secret knowledge is required to gain access.

“Tellingly, YouTube does use encryption and a password-controlled login to limit access to subscribers of its separate pay-TV service, YouTube TV,” EFF adds.

According to EFF, Yout and similar tools provide the same functions as video cassette recorders once did. They allow people to make copies of videos that are posted publicly by their creators.

In addition, these tools are vital for some reporters and useful to creatives who use them for future work.

“Journalists and human rights monitoring organizations need to be able to save copies of eyewitness videos documenting notable events, conflicts, and malfeasance. Even copyright holders and their licensees rely on tools like Yout.com to download copies of their own or licensed works.”

“This Court should reject the unwarranted expansion of Section 1201 liability, and reverse the dismissal of Yout.com’s claims,” EFF concludes.

The RIAA has yet to respond to Yout’s appeal brief. Considering the importance of the case, it seems likely that they will also receive support from other rightsholders or their representatives.

—

A copy of GitHub’s Amicus Curiae brief calling for the reversal of the lower court’s decision in favor of the RIAA is available here (pdf) and EFF’s brief can be found here (pdf)

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

Genshin Impact publisher Cognosphere PTE Ltd is developing an aggressive stance towards people who leak images of unreleased content online.

In December 2022, Cognosphere targeted Ubatcha , one of Genshin Impact’s most prolific and popular leakers. Last month, Cognosphere kept up the legal pressure by targeting users of the popular ‘House of Daena’ Discord channel, among others

In both cases, Cognosphere’s attorneys filed DMCA subpoena applications at district courts in California. DMCA subpoenas compel service providers, such as Discord, Twitter or Reddit, to hand over information they hold on users identified by rightsholders as copyright infringers.

In the event that useful personal information is disclosed to Cognosphere’s legal team, a number of options become available. A full-blown copyright infringement lawsuit is one possibility, but the company may use the information to end or mitigate future infringement instead. If an alleged infringer has useful information about leaks but wouldn’t normally disclose it, a legal letter with their name and address on the front may help them to change their mind.

New DMCA Subpoena Targets @merlin_impact on Twitter

Filed on February 8 at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Cognosphere requests cooperation from Twitter so that it can obtain the identity of one of its users.

“It has come to our attention that numerous images infringing Cognosphere’s copyrighted Game are being made available by user Mero@merlin_impact at his Twitter account available at Uniform Resource Locator: https://twitter.com/merlin_impact,” the application reads.

“We request that Twitter take expeditious action to remove or disable access to all copyrighted materials concerning the Game in the Infringing Account, including those posts identified in the attached Exhibit A [shown below]. Alternatively, we request that Twitter remove or disable the entire Infringing Account.”

As proof of infringement, Cognosphere provides links to two tweets published by its official Genshin Impact Twitter account. Each of those tweets contains one piece of original content for reference.

The Original and Allegedly Infringing Images

Published on Twitter by the official @GenshinImpact account on January 16, 2023 , the first image depicts a new Genshin Impact character named ‘Deyha’.

According to the DMCA subpoena application, @merlin_impact published copies of this image on their Twitter account in two individual tweets, one on January 17 and the second on January 18.

As shown in the image below, the image at the top right is the original tweet from the official @GenshinImpact account ( 1 ), and the two images at the bottom are the alleged copies ( 1 , 2 ) published by @merlin_impact.

It’s immediately obvious that while they relate to the same subject matter (a new character), the images posted by @merlin_impact are not copies of the original image featured in the Genshin Impact tweet.

Also published on Twitter by the official @GenshinImpact account on January 16, 2023 , the second allegedly infringed image depicts another new Genshin Impact character named ‘Mika’.

According to the DMCA subpoena application, @merlin_impact published copies of this image on their Twitter account in two individual tweets, contrary to copyright law, on January 18 – two days after they first appeared on the official Genshin Impact account.

The image at the top left is the original posted by the official @GenshinImpact account, and the two images at the bottom are the alleged pirate copies posted by @merlin_impact.

Again, it is clear that the images posted by @merlin_impact are not identical copies of the original image featured in the Genshin Impact tweet, as referenced in the DMCA subpoena.

The ‘copies’ clearly feature the same character, but so do hundreds of images and countless videos available online (including on YouTube) that predate @merlin_impact’s tweets.

For example, the article published here reproduces both pieces of artwork in full but isn’t targeted in a subpoena. Another article featuring the new characters dates back to December 2022 , and that appears fine too.

Twitter Hasn’t Taken The Tweets Down

Despite having been sent DMCA notices on Tuesday this week, at the time of writing, Twitter hasn’t taken down @merlin_impact’s allegedly infringing tweets. Of course, that could still happen, but that raises questions about the hundreds of images shared by fans online that actually match the original images mentioned in the subpoena but don’t appear to have attracted interest from Cognosphere’s legal team.

So moving forward, what are the rules for Genshin Impact fans posting online? Post images and hope the lawyers don’t mind, or stop posting images altogether to remove all doubt? Every single piece of Genshin Impact artwork is protected under copyright law, meaning that at least in theory, $150,000 in damages per image if it all goes wrong.

That kind of worry could discourage fans from promoting the game altogether but perhaps something else is going on here.

It’s possible that @merlin_impact is of interest for other reasons, and that’s why they’ve been handpicked for personal attention from a pool of thousands. While that does seem more likely, the chances of the details being made public are very limited indeed.

The DMCA subpoena documents can be found here ( 1 , 2 , pdf)

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

In 2021, Sony Music obtained an injunction that ordered DNS resolver Quad9 to block a popular pirate site.

The injunction, issued by the District Court of Hamburg, required the Swiss DNS resolver to block access to a site that links to pirated music.

The name of the targeted site wasn’t revealed, but we deduced that Canna.to was the target. That site was also targeted in a voluntary blocking agreement previously signed by rightsholders and ISPs.

Quad9 Appeals, Sony Files Main Proceeding

The Quad9 Foundation fiercely opposed the injunction. The DNS resolver submitted an appeal to the Court hoping to overturn the blocking order, arguing that the decision sets a dangerous precedent.

The non-profit foundation stressed that copyrights should be respected online, but believes that enforcing blocking measures through third-party intermediaries goes a step too far.

The initial objection failed when the Regional Court in Hamburg upheld the blocking injunction. However, that was just a preliminary proceeding, and Quad9 was adamant it would continue the legal battle to prevent a broader impact on the Internet ecosystem.

Quad9 isn’t alone in viewing this as a crucial matter; Sony does too, albeit for different reasons. The music company went on to initiate a main proceeding at the Leipzig court, the next step in the legal process where both sides would be able to present more evidence and expert opinions.

Court Hears DNS Blocking Case

The matter was heard yesterday at the regional court in Leipzig, where both sides were able to present their arguments. While a decision is still forthcoming, Quad9 reiterated the importance of the case. If Sony wins, Quad9 believes that more and broader blocking actions may follow.

“Although this blocking applies only to Quad9’s services located in Germany, by bringing this court case to fruition, Sony Music — and those who may eventually follow — appear to be pushing the idea that they are above and beyond the principles of freedom, decentralization, and proportionality,” the DNS provider writes .

Quad9 argues that it’s merely passing on metadata; it doesn’t store or transfer any content. It’s in the best interests of the public at large to keep DNS resolvers universally accessible, and any curation should be done in the best interests of users, not corporations.

That last part could be relevant; Quad9 has positioned itself as a secure DNS resolver that gives users the option to block millions of malware-related connections and websites. In this case, however, it believes that court-ordered piracy blockades are not in the public interest.

“Recursive DNS is not an effective or reasonable place to impose external policies that are undesired or unrequested by the end user,” Quad9 notes.

“The ability of corporate entities to impose their will on unrelated third parties such as DNS resolution services creates a chilling effect which will reduce free information exchange, and introduces a significant risk of overreach and abuse against which there is little recourse.”

Expert Contrasts Key Piracy Cases

The DNS resolver is supported by the German Society for Freedom Rights (GFF), which commissioned Prof. Dr. Ruth Janal to prepare an expert opinion. The report concludes that intermediaries such as Quad9 should’t be held liable for third-party copyright infringement.

According to the professor, Sony Music’s arguments and the lower court’s decision equate the DNS resolver to content hosting platforms such as YouTube and Uploaded, whereas Quad9 is more akin to a mere conduit service, in the sense that it simply passes on bits.

Germany’s Federal Court previously ruled that hosting services can indeed be held liable for copyright infringement (e.g. YouTube/Uploaded ) but the same logic shouldn’t apply to a DNS provider, Professor Janal argues.

As a mere conduit service, courts could require Quad9 to take action through a “no-fault” injunction, a process that’s already used in ISP blocking orders. In those cases, however, the intermediary isn’t held liable for pirating users.

Specifically, a recent court order in Germany concerning Sci-Hub clarified that these types of blockades are only warranted if all other options have been exhausted. That includes going after a website’s hosting provider.

‘Sony Should Go After the Hosting Company’

GFF project coordinator Felix Reda , who previously served as a Member of the European Parliament for the Pirate Party, notes that Sony failed to go after the hosting company in this case.

“Crucially, Sony did not seek an injunction against the EU-based hosting provider of the website at issue in its lawsuit against Quad9 either,” Reda informs TorrentFreak.

“The expert opinion by Prof. Ruth Janal finds that clearly, Quad9 is a type of mere conduit service like ISPs and must therefore be treated on the basis of the rules of no-fault injunctions, which only allow DNS blocking if all options to bring the infringement to an end at the source have been exhausted,” Reda adds.

The music company is yet to publicly share its view on the case. Sony and other rightsholders will likely put forward their own expert reports arguing that blocking is both warranted and reasonable.

High Stakes

There is no denying that the stakes are high in this case. Quad9 and GFF fear that if DNS providers can be held liable rather than there being “no-fault”, they may choose not to oppose blocking requests going forward.

“If DNS services were treated as wrongdoers, the financial risk of opposing a blocking request would be so high that they would have little other choices than to comply with any blocking request without taking the issue to court,” Reda says.

While there can be good reasons to block a site, doing so with court oversight helps to prevent over-blocking by considering the rights of service providers, copyright holders, and the general public.

For their part, rightsholders believe that third-party intermediaries should take responsibility. When DNS providers risk being held liable, action is guaranteed.

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

Late January, Michael Barone filed an important document at a district court in Pennsylvania. With his freedom on the line, the stakes could hardly have been higher.

The New York man was among several people arrested following the FBI shutdown of pirate IPTV services owned by Pennsylvania and New Jersey man, Bill Omar Carrasquillo.

Better known online as Omi in a Hellcat, Carrasquillo had built an empire of IPTV streaming services that captured Comcast, Verizon, Spectrum, DirecTV, and Frontier Communications broadcasts, and then illegally retransmitted them over the internet at knockdown prices.

Barone had worked for Carrasquillo, initially handling customer support tickets at 25 cents a pop. In the beginning, that earned Barone between $250 and $500 per week, but after progressing up the ranks, pay began to increase. According to his sentencing memorandum, Barone’s total earnings when working for Carrasquillo amounted to $122,402.

Meanwhile, Carrasquillo was raking in tens of millions, and an increasingly nervous Barone wanted out. After allegedly receiving multiple in-person death threats , Barone left Carrasquillo’s business in 2018, but it was too late.

Carrasquillo was arrested in November 2019, and after visits from the FBI in 2020 and 2021, Barone was arrested too. Barone ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy. His letter to the court last month was a last-ditch attempt to spend as little time in prison as possible.

Barone Sentenced to 14 Months in Prison

The majority of court filings in the cases against Carrasquillo, Barone, and a third defendant, Jesse Gonzalez, remain under seal. Sentencing documents relating to Barone are also inaccessible, with the exception of a 7-page judgment handed down this week.

After pleading guilty to count 1 (conspiracy) in the superseding indictment, Barone was sentenced by Judge Harvey Bartle III in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Barone was ordered to serve 14 months in prison, in a facility as close as possible to upstate New York.

In a sentencing memorandum submitted to the Court last month, counsel for Barone explained that the New York man had believed Carrasquillo’s claims that the IPTV business operated in a “gray area.”

Barone’s income from a conspiracy said to be worth almost $168 million was relatively small, just $122,402 overall. The judgment orders Barone to pay that exact amount in restitution, with the first monthly payment of $50 becoming due 60 days after his release from custody.

Barone must surrender to the institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons on March 20, 2023. Upon release, he will be on supervised release for a term of two years. Barone will have to comply with numerous conditions, including mandatory participation in a drug treatment program and full disclosure of his financial records to the U.S. Probation Office.

Barone’s legal team had requested a sentence of between 8 and 14 months, so the judgment meets that expectation. The expectations of Carrasquillo and Jesse Gonzalez are currently unknown.

Judge Harvey Bartle III’s judgment can be found here ( pdf )

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

The fleeting non-fungible token (NFT) craze showed that some people are willing to pay vast amounts of money for digital assets that are not guaranteed to retain their value.

These digital entries are stored on a blockchain and allow buyers to prove that they are legitimate ‘owners’ of some underlying asset or right.

While NFTs don’t grant copyrights, NFT owners are ‘rights’ holders in a sense, although the specifics may vary from project to project based on the fine print.

Corporate and Government Interest

In recent months interest in NFTs has waned, with some early adopters finding themselves heavily in the red thanks to their purchases. While some of these NFTs are bound to become irrelevant, the underlying technology has plenty of potential.

Many of the largest companies in the world acknowledged the opportunities and embraced NFTs. Major brands such as Coca-Cola, Disney, Nike, and Ubisoft were quick to jump on the bandwagon, for example.

Interest is in large part driven by the potential revenues the technology might deliver moving forward. At the same time, however, there are challenges as well; the copyright implications are not always clear and ‘pirated’ NFTs will almost certainly complicate matters.

The U.S. Government is taking these issues seriously. Late last year, the Patent and Trademark Office and the Copyright Office launched a joint consultation to take stock of the potential legal and policy questions related to NFTs.

MPA Shares Its NFT Views

Dozens of companies and organizations have responded to the call with detailed opinions. They include the Motion Picture Association (MPA), which represents Netflix and the major Hollywood studios.

In the past, major copyright holders have fiercely resisted novel technologies. When it comes to NFTs, the MPA and its members see an exciting business opportunity.

“NFTs represent an exciting business opportunity for MPA’s members to promote their core products —motion pictures and television programs — in new ways, expand their merchandise offerings, and connect with their audiences on a deeper level,” the MPA writes.

Potential copyright issues are always a concern but the Hollywood group believes that current laws are capable of handling any NFT-related challenges.

“Although NFTs are still in their infancy, and it is difficult to predict future marketplace developments and potential uses of this new technology, the MPA currently believes that existing intellectual property law can address issues if and when they arise.”

Blockchain technology is already widely used in the movie industry with official NFT releases for prominent titles including The Matrix, Star Trek, Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Lord of the Rings, Ghostbusters, Back to the Future, Stranger Things, and even the Powerpuff Girls.

Some of the same brands have also been exploited by third parties who created unauthorized NFTs. While that’s a problem, the MPA believes that U.S. law, including the DMCA’s takedown provision, is well-equipped to handle copyright and trademark issues as they arise.

Authentication and Piracy

The MPA’s submission shows that it has made considerable effort to understand the NFT ecosystem and its potential. In addition to the ‘collectible’ aspect, NFTs can also be used as proof of ownership or access.

The MPA says that streaming services could use NFTs as an authentication option, for example, replacing the traditional username and password.

“NFTs can serve a limited role in the context of access controls to streaming content. Specifically, if the user’s license were contained in an NFT, the streaming service could implement a system to ensure that the NFT is in the user’s crypto wallet before initiating the stream,” MPA notes.

There are also projects that envision the use of NFTs to fight piracy and counterfeiting, including an official EU initiative . However, the MPA doesn’t see blockchain authentication technology as a potential anti-piracy tool.

“This system has been utilized to a very limited extent thus far. Beyond that, there is no reason to believe that NFTs can currently solve the overall problem of online piracy,” the MPA writes.

The same applies to the content to which an NFT might provide access. Pirates can still copy the content and share it elsewhere, NFTs can’t prevent that.

“While the NFT may be perfectly secure on the blockchain, that fact does nothing to enhance the security of copies of the underlying work or prevent unauthorized exercise of any of the §106 rights. The NFT simply creates a chain of alleged ownership of the particular copy.”

The MPA seems positive about the potential of NFTs. Hollywood doesn’t believe the technology will stop piracy or revolutionize copyright management but recognizes the commercial potential.

RIAA Sees Opportinities and Threats

This overall sentiment is shared by other rightsholder groups, including the RIAA. In a joint submission alongside A2IM, Screen Actors Guild and SAG-AFTRA, the music industry’s trade organization sees endless commercial opportunities. Piracy remains a concern, however.

Coming from the RIAA, that’s hardly a surprise. The recording industry group has already sent DMCA takedowns and cease and desist letters targeting unauthorized music-inspired NFT projects.

“While NFTs and online interactive environments present endless and unprecedented opportunities for rightsholders to exploit their works and engage with consumers, they also present new and novel ways in which works, and especially digital music works, can be infringed and pirated,” RIAA notes.

Similar to the MPA, RIAA and partners don’t see NFTs as a replacement for current copyright registration or management options. At least, not at this stage.

“Further, claims that NFT and metaverse technology will solve digital transparency and accountability problems are overblown and premature, if not outright false,” RIAA writes.

“The current technology in the NFT and metaverse space, while innovative and promising, is simply not where it needs to be to ensure that copyright holders can consistently and effectively manage and enforce their copyrights.”

Finally, both the MPA and RIAA stress that NFT platforms must properly educate consumers on what they’re actually buying. Right now, it is often uncertain what rights are associated with an NFT and how these rights can be exploited. Falling prices aside, unmet expectations can lead to disappointment for buyers down the road.

—

A copy of MPA’s submission for the ‘Study on Non-Fungible Tokens and Related Intellectual Property Law’ is available here (pdf) and the filing of RIAA and consorts can be found here (pdf)

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

Advanced TV Network (ATN) was an IPTV service in Sweden that supplied more than a thousand TV channels to customers via the Internet. In 2008, that was an unusual achievement.

ATN gave the impression of operating legally. As a registered company it was generating annual sales of around $7 million by 2013 and paid taxes to the state. However, the content ATN supplied to its customers had illegal origins.

A police raid in 2016 led to three of its operators being convicted two years later for criminal copyright infringement, among other offenses.

All three were handed prison sentences and ordered to pay $24 million in damages to rightsholders, but the service itself lived on after relocating to the United Arab Emirates. Utilizing overseas resellers, ATN continued its business in Europe and North America but ran into more trouble in 2020. An IBCAP investigation led to a DISH lawsuit that targeted the pirate IPTV service’s official distributor in the United States.

DISH Lawsuit Takes a Second Bite

Filed in a Florida district court in October 2020, the complaint alleged that Alfa TV Inc. was operated in the United States by individuals associated with ATN. In the complaint, Florida resident Hisham Manse Ibrahem was named as the company’s president, Haitham Mansi its vice-president. Nezar Saeed Hammo allegedly acted as Alfa’s marketing manager while Mohammed Abu Oun was identified as the company’s general manager.

DISH alleged that the men and Alfa TV Inc. did business under the pirate IPTV brand ElafnetTV, which in turn described itself as the “Biggest Arabic IPTV Provider in the World.” After failing to respond to takedown notices, IBCAP/DISH ran out of patience and sought $150,000 in statutory damages for at least 107 registered works – a total of $16,050,000.

With the pandemic causing chaos and less than cooperative defendants, progress in the case was slow. Then on May 21, 2021, Alfa TV marketing manager Nezar Saeed Hammo filed for bankruptcy in Florida. Within days DISH moved to hold Alfa TV Inc. and Hisham Ibrahem in contempt of court, and then filed for default judgment against Haitham Mansi, who countered in August 2021 by answering the lawsuit.

After almost a year of subsequent filings, in July 2022 the court announced that a jury trial had been scheduled for July 3, 2023. What followed was six months of complete silence and then a sudden flurry of activity last month.

Docket Comes Alive, IBCAP Celebrates Judgments Worth $32m

In an announcement yesterday, the International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy (IBCAP) celebrated wins for its member, DISH, in both the district court and bankruptcy court in Florida.

“[A] federal district court and a federal bankruptcy court, both in Florida, have ordered Hisham Manse Ibrahem and Nezar Saeed Hammo, U.S.-based sellers of the pirate service ATN, to pay $32,100,000 in combined damages for willful copyright infringement,” IBCAP’s announcement reads.

“Both individuals were selling the ATN service through a company known as Alfa TV Inc., which was also found liable, along with Haitham Mansi, a Sweden-based owner, and operator of Alfa TV, Inc.”

As previously noted, Nezar Saeed Hammo filed for bankruptcy in May 2021. IBCAP says that since the move was an attempt to avoid liability, an adversary complaint was filed to determine the non-dischargeability of the debt against him.

“As with similar actions against willful copyright infringers, the bankruptcy court ruled the judgment non-dischargeable, again showing that infringers cannot use the bankruptcy system to avoid liability for willful copyright infringement,” IBCAP notes.

A Win is a Win – Even When Defendants Agree to Lose

While IBCAP’s statement is technically accurate, liability was only established after consent was obtained from the defendants. On January 10, 2023, a stipulation was filed jointly by DISH and defendants Alfa TV Inc., Haitham Mansi, and Hisham Manse Ibrahem. This meant that the judge didn’t have to determine liability on the merits, because an agreement between the plaintiff and defendants established that as fact.

“DISH and Defendants request that the Court enter a final judgment and permanent injunction against Defendants. This stipulation has no effect on DISH’s claims against co-defendants Nezar Saeed Hammo and Mohammed Abu Oun,” it reads ( pdf ) .

The proposed order and injunction ( pdf ) was signed by the judge the very next day. A note that each party will bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs may hint at the realities behind the scenes, but cast-iron confidentiality agreements mean the details are unlikely to see the light of day.

And Then There Were Two…

In response to Nezar Saeed Hammo filing for bankruptcy in May 2021, DISH filed a complaint against him in August the same year. That docket runs to 51 entries with the penultimate entry (dated January 12, 2023) revealing another stipulated motion for final judgment and permanent injunction.

The agreement between DISH and the apparently penniless Hammo is almost identical to the separate agreement signed by his colleagues. However, by admitting his actions were “willful and malicious,” the $16 million Hammo owes DISH in damages is rendered non-dischargeable.

Each party will bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs in this matter too, but the real magic lies elsewhere.

The original complaint filed by DISH demanded $150,000 in statutory damages for 107 registered works – a total of $16,050,000. From the same pool of defendants, with exactly the same damages claims, DISH has managed to double the original request for damages to more than $32 million.

IBCAP Says It’s Pleased With The Result

As some may have noticed, a defendant named in the original complaint is absent from these judgments. DISH voluntarily dismissed Mohammed Abu Oun from the lawsuit on January 18, 2023, but without prejudice. In theory, that raises the possibility of another $16 million in agreed damages later on. Whether any of the defendants expect to pay anything is unknown but IBCAP says it’s pleased with the outcome.

“Yet again, the federal courts have levied huge financial awards against individuals in the U.S. who were selling pirate services,” says Chris Kuelling, executive director of IBCAP.

“This case is another example of why it is not worth the risk for retailers to sell pirate services. It is also important to point out that sellers of pirate services cannot use bankruptcy to shield against their illegal activities.”

Meanwhile, the ATN IPTV service is still online, but IBCAP says its members’ content is no longer being made available. In a statement sent to TorrentFreak, IBCAP notes that while DISH puts its name on the lawsuit as the rightsholder, IBCAP itself does most of the work.

“IBCAP is the driver behind these lawsuits. As a coalition that represents the interests of more than 170 channels, our lab and analysts, team of lawyers, and other experts are instrumental in identifying pirate sources of content and we have a very high success rate in taking down illegal streams without litigation,” the anti-piracy group notes.

“On behalf of our members, IBCAP is responsible for all monitoring, pre-litigation investigations, legal resources and efforts, including takedowns and the identification of non-compliant sources of our members’ content. Once identified, we guide our members to take final legal action to protect content. As the final part of this process, our members have to do the actual filing because they are the rightsholder.

“However, it is IBCAP doing the pre-litigation work, takedown efforts, identifying the targets for lawsuits and providing the necessary evidence to achieve a successful outcome,” the group concludes.

Documents related to both actions can be found here ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , all pdf)

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