Three years after the raids that dismantled his Megaupload empire, it was clear that Kim Dotcom was digging in for the long haul.

Whether even he anticipated just how long that haul would be is unclear. Having taken every imaginable step to make his prosecution and likely extradition as difficult as possible, it certainly can’t be ruled out.

For Dotcom, information has proven to be a valuable and flexible commodity; in 2015 he made dozens of requests to numerous government departments to gain what he described as ‘urgent’ access to information to assist in his looming extradition defense.

Vexatious Requests Denied

With Dotcom’s case already a political hot potato, decisions were made to transfer these requests, mostly under s39 of the Privacy Act, to then-Solicitor General Chris Finlayson. Due to their broad scope, allegedly including demands for trivial information, Finlayson labeled the requests frivolous and ultimately vexatious.

The Solicitor General noted that the July 2015 information requests were labeled urgent because Dotcom’s extradition eligibility hearing was due to take place in September at the District Court. However, the nature of the requests led him to conclude that their true purpose was to disrupt that hearing and since they weren’t made in good faith, he rejected them all.

Dotcom Takes Legal Action

Dotcom denied he had an ulterior motive and followed up with legal action, claiming that the government was holding back information to which he was legally entitled.

In Dotcom v Crown Law Office [2018] NZHRRT 7 ( pdf ) , the Human Rights Review Tribunal found that the Crown had indeed interfered with Kim Dotcom’s privacy by rejecting what was described as “multiple, near identical, Privacy Act requests made to all Ministers and nearly every government department for all personal information held about him.”

For “loss of dignity or injury to feelings” Dotcom won NZ$60,000 in damages plus another NZ$30,000 to compensate for the lack of disclosure. The Crown appealed that decision and in September 2018 the matter was heard at the High Court in Wellington.

High Court Sides With Solicitor-General

The High Court agreed with the Solicitor-General, noting that the requests were transferred for lawful reasons. The Court described the earlier damages award in favor of Dotcom as “ wholly erroneous .” There was no evidence to show that the information being sought was even relevant to the extradition proceedings, the High Court ruled.

Months earlier, the government had actually started to respond to Dotcom’s requests and by mid-June 2018, “tranches of information” had been handed over to Dotcom, with a few exceptions for legal reasons.

Nevertheless, the High Court’s decision in October 2018 was labeled “a bad day for human rights” by Dotcom, who took his many grievances to the Court of Appeal.

Court of Appeal Sides With Dotcom

The Court of Appeal eventually sided with Dotcom and, by broad extension, the decision in his favor at the Human Rights Review Tribunal earlier. The transfer of the information requests between government departments breached Dotcom’s privacy, the Court of Appeal confirmed. All that remained was to determine the scale of Dotcom’s damages award.

Having previously ruled in favor of Dotcom with an award of NZ$90,000, in February 2022 the Tribunal decided that this time around, Dotcom wouldn’t receive a penny. In response, Dotcom appealed once more to the High Court, but it also declined to award him damages. When Dotcom applied for leave to appeal the High Court’s decision at the Court of Appeal, the High Court rejected that too.

Application for Special Leave to Appeal

Never one to give up, Dotcom filed an application at the Court of Appeal. He requested special leave to appeal the decision of the High Court, which had dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, which had awarded him zero damages.

Late last month, Dotcom’s application for special leave to appeal was declined by the Court of Appeal. The reasoning behind that decision is laid out in considerable detail in the court’s decision, which is linked below.

What is clear, however, is that Dotcom’s focus on receiving an award for damages for “loss of benefit” under New Zealand’s Privacy Act, concerned his inability to use the information requested during the extradition proceedings. That failed to move the needle at the Court of Appeal.

“It is clear from the various judgments given in the extradition proceedings that there would have been no benefit to Mr Dotcom if he had received the information requested at the time the extradition proceedings were underway. The Courts consistently held that the peripheral matters raised by Mr Dotcom were irrelevant to the extradition process, given the Court’s limited role in determining a person’s eligibility for surrender,” the Court of Appeal’s decision reads.

“Following the Tribunal complaint decision, Mr Dotcom sought to raise before this Court the fact that the Tribunal had found that there had been an interference with his privacy and had awarded him [NZ]$90,000 in damages for breach of the 1993 Act. Mr Dotcom argued that the Tribunal complaint decision was relevant to the extradition hearing, because it confirmed an abuse of process that would undermine public confidence in the judicial system.

“This Court disagreed. It noted that the conduct at issue did not come close to establishing the high threshold required to stay extradition proceedings and that the attempt to rely on it for this purpose was misconceived.”

Tactics Noted But Ultimately Unsuccessful

Other matters were also considered by the Court, none of which went in Dotcom’s favor. In closing, the Court of Appeal made a general assessment of events relating to this application. From a few steps back, attributing it to most side issues raised by the defense, before numerous courts in more recent years, might not be an especially big stretch.

“This Court’s primary function is to clarify the law. It is not every alleged error of law that is of such importance, either generally or to the parties, as to justify the further pursuit of issues which have already been considered on multiple occasions. That is very much the case with the present application,” the decision reads.

In the absence of “any other reason” that would make it appropriate to grant Dotcom special leave to appeal, the application was denied.

The decision is available here ( pdf )

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

The International Olympic Committee ( IOC ) is known to be very protective of its intellectual property rights.

Using an image of the Olympic rings or even just the word ‘Olympic’ can lead to legal trouble, especially when use takes place in a commercial context.

Most valuable, however, are IOC’s broadcasting rights. With literally billions of dollars at stake, the IOC and its licensing partners are doing everything in their power to prevent people from enjoying their events without permission.

From Torrents to Streaming

The IOC doesn’t shy away from using its power and influence to aid this cause. Sixteen years ago, for example, it reached out to the Swedish Government , asking for assistance to remove pirated Olympic broadcasts from The Pirate Bay.

Sweden couldn’t directly help with this problem, as it lacked any control over the notorious torrent site. The Pirate Bay itself didn’t feel threatened by the diplomatic pressure either. On the contrary, it temporarily renamed itself The Beijing Bay.

Today, Olympic piracy remains a problem, but the nature of the threat has evolved. Instead of worrying about torrents, the IOC sees live-streaming portals as the menace du jour . Unlike torrents, which can take a while to download, live streams directly compete with regular broadcasts.

Thousands of Olympic Takedowns

Last week, we already reported that the IOC, alongside others, obtained a site blocking order at the Paris Judicial Court. This order requires the large French ISPs to block access to several pirate streaming sites and IPTV providers.

While the blocking order is currently in effect, it is limited to 25 domain names and only applies to France. The Olympic Committee didn’t stop there though, it also enlisted anti-piracy partner Friend MTS to issue more traditional DMCA takedown requests.

Most of these DMCA efforts take place outside the public eye. With help from Google’s transparency report and the Lumen Database , we can nonetheless get a glimpse of the takedown action.

These public data reveal that IOC has sent numerous takedown notices this month, together targeting thousands of URLs. The notices request Google to remove these links from its search engine, to make it harder for the public to find pirated Olympics streams.

“Please note that the IOC is the owner of all rights in and to the Olympic Games and the Olympic Properties and, in particular, regarding the audio-visual content produced for the Olympic Summer Games Paris 2024,” IOC writes

“Such Olympic content may not be transmitted or communicated via the internet or any other interactive media or electronic medium without the express prior written approval of the IOC, which in accordance with our records, has not been granted to you.”

The Pirate Bay’s No Longer a Serious Threat

Thus far, the IOC has asked Google to remove 5,907 URLs from its search engine. The list is dominated by pirate streaming sites such as Antenasports.ru, Buff-streams.net, Francemag.com, and Watchsportnow.com. Interestingly, we didn’t spot a single torrent site.

Due to the delayed nature of torrents and direct downloads, in combination with widely available pirated live streams, it makes sense that sites such as The Pirate Bay are no longer considered a significant threat.

In fact, aside from the opening ceremony, we haven’t spotted any regularly scheduled ‘torrents’ of Olympic competitions. That’s a far cry from a decade ago when the original EZTV team openly revolted against IOC’s anti-piracy tactics by sharing numerous Olympic torrents.

“[T]he IOC is purely interested in making as much money from broadcasting as possible. We think differently, we believe everyone should be able to see these events freely and inspire future sport heroes!” EZTV told us at the time.

Fast-forward a decade, and the new EZTV team has no Olympic coverage and there is no “Paris Bay” either. IOC is still very much concerned with piracy, of course, but has shifted to a new set of targets.

Times change, but some things will always be the same.

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

After receiving an anonymous tip in 2019, anti-piracy group Nordic Content Protection (NCP), and members including pay-TV company C More (previously Canal+), Warner Bros. Discovery and streaming service Viaplay, launched a pirate IPTV investigation.

NCP received a similar tip in 2020, this time from police in the city of Gävle. They were passing on the details of another anonymous tip detailing the activities of a suspected pirate IPTV network. After a period of surveillance, which included wiretapping an unknown number of suspects, police executed warrants at two addresses, one in Gävle and the other in Sandviken.

Two suspected operators were detained along with evidence that included 47 gold bars, an expensive whiskey collection, around $25,000 in cash, and roughly $41,000 in bitcoin.

At the Stockholm District Court’s Patent and Market Court in October 2023, the men were found guilty of criminal copyright infringement and sentenced to prison. They were also held jointly and severally liable for damages totaling SEK 196,247,000 ($18 million), payable to C More, Warner Bros. Discovery, and Viaplay.

The Inevitable Appeal

In the belief that the sentences were too lenient, the prosecutor asked the Patent and Market Appeal Court to increase the sentences of the defendants, who in court records are identified by the initials S.Ö. and JL.

S.Ö and JL asked the Patent and Market Appeal Court to acquit them, dismiss the copyright holders’ claims for damages and the requirement to pay their legal costs, plus a full dismissal of a confiscation order against seized IPTV boxes.

In common with the trial at the lower court, the men denied claims that they retransmitted the plaintiffs’ TV broadcasts. JL appears to have conceded limited involvement in IPTV sales, handling just a few clients via a guest login to a service he’d previously handed over to someone else, plus sales of unmodified IPTV boxes.

Evidence showed that during the raids on the men’s homes, no ‘outward flow’ was identified from the suspects’ computers. However, one of JL’s computers contained software “that enabled reception and streaming of IPTV.” Evidence showed that S.Ö. paid for server space while JL had purchased server licenses and software subscriptions for receiving and distributing IPTV.

The content of chat messages and their handling of payments confirmed to the satisfaction of the court that the men were indeed involved in IPTV. All that remained was to determine the scale of the offending.

Thousands of Customers, But How Many Thousands?

The prosecutor’s case against the men called on significant evidence that reportedly left little doubt that they were closely involved with all aspects of the alleged IPTV business. To demonstrate that the operation distributed content illegally to many users, the prosecution partly relied on photographs taken during the raids, including those that claimed to show how many users S.Ö and JL serviced on the platform.

“According to the prosecutor, the photographs show that S.Ö. at the time of the crackdown had 4,619 users in the network and that JL had 8,303 users in the network, i.e. their network had a total of 12,992 users,” the court’s decision reads.

Evidence Fell Short

But there was a problem. S.Ö. and JL informed the court that the photographs, which showed IPTV panel software Ministra (formerly known as Stalker portal), did not show the number of users but rather the number of ‘events’ generated by users. That cast doubt on the claim that the service had close to 13,000 users.

Instead, several pieces of evidence backed up the defendants’ assertion that their platform had around 5,000 users, a claim that was first made in the anonymous tip received by NCP back in 2019.

Without making any changes to the substance of the underlying judgment, the Court of Appeal recalculated the damages payable to the rightsholders. From just over SEK 196,000,000 (US$18,210,000) the new damages amount of just under SEK 114,000,000 (US$10,591,000) trimmed the original amount by roughly US$7 million.

The decision may be appealed before August 2, 2024 ( pdf )

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

Internet infrastructure service Cloudflare serves millions of customers around the globe, providing various connectivity and security features.

When it comes to DMCA takedown requests, the company has always drawn a clear line; when it doesn’t store any content for a customer, it will simply forward DMCA takedown requests to the customer’s hosting company.

Ideally, rightsholders would like Cloudflare to take a more active stance . Since popular pirate sites, including The Pirate Bay, use the CDN service, they argue it would be helpful if Cloudflare disabled access to infringing content though its platform.

Cloudflare, however, sees itself as a ‘mere conduit’ service that merely passes on bits. This means that it is not required to take action against third-party infringements directly, unless content is permanently stored on its servers, which is rare.

DMCA Subpoena

Rightsholders are well aware of Cloudflare’s stance. While there have been plenty of complaints in the past, the status quo remains. Groups such as the Alliance of Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) still send DMCA takedown notices, but that’s mostly as a prelude to sending §512(h) DMCA subpoenas.

Grounded in the same law, DMCA subpoenas allow rightsholders to request the personal details of Cloudflare customers who are allegedly engaged in pirating activities. These subpoenas don’t require judicial oversight and Cloudflare generally complies with them, handing over customer data.

Earlier this month, a seemingly obscure DMCA subpoena request was submitted at a California federal court. The request came from J18 Publishing , the owner of Doujin.io. With the subpoena, J18 hopes to uncover the identity of the alleged operator of pirate site Nhentai.net.

Nhentai is by no means a small site. With more than 70 million monthly visits, the free hentai manga and doujinshi reader has a sizable audience. Understandably, rightsholders would like to know who’s running the site.

As is often the case, a court clerk swiftly signed off on the subpoena paperwork, requiring Cloudflare to comply. In this case, however, that’s not going to be straightforward.

Improper

A few days after the DMCA subpoena was issued, lawyers representing Nhentai slammed on the brakes. They don’t want any personal data to be disclosed and argue that the subpoena should have never been granted.

Nhentai asks the court to quash the subpoena for several reasons. For one, it argues that these DMCA subpoenas are not intended for use against companies that operate as mere conduit providers.

In its defense, Nhentai cites several precedents where courts have concluded that DMCA subpoenas don’t apply to mere conduit services. This includes the RIAA vs. Verizon case .

“In analyzing the issue in a very detailed fashion, Courts have quashed §512(h) subpoenas where they were served on a party that was not ‘engaged in storing on its servers material that is infringing or is the subject of infringing activity’,” Nhentai writes, adding another example.

“The D.C. Circuit further held that ‘§512(h) does not authorize the issuance of a subpoena to an ISP acting as a mere conduit for the transmission of information sent by others’.”

Mere Conduit

As highlighted earlier, Cloudflare has clearly positioned itself as a ‘mere conduit’ provider under the DMCA. Nhentai argues the same, and stresses that DMCA subpoenas are not applicable for that reason.

“Cloudflare is a §512(a) ISP that acts only as a conduit with respect to Nhentai.net, and accordingly, it is not properly subject to subpoena under §512(h). Specifically, images from Nhentai.net never pass through or are stored on Cloudflare servers in any form.”

Nhentai further notes that the subpoena is too broad, arguing that the owners of the domain name are not the infringers. In addition, the subpoena would violate the owners’ right to anonymous speech.

Thus far, Cloudflare itself hasn’t objected to DMCA subpoenas, and this case is no exception. Courts have recently quashed DMCA subpoenas directed at mere conduit ISPs, reiterating that they don’t apply to companies that store no content, so it will be interesting to see how Nhentai’s challenge pans out.

Fringe Case, Landmark Decision?

For now, the California federal court has stayed the matter, meaning that Cloudflare doesn’t have to comply with the subpoena. Meanwhile, J18 Publishing has two weeks to argue why it should be granted after all.

While Nhentai operates in a fringe corner of the broader piracy landscape, this case could have far-reaching consequences. If the court quashes the subpoena, similar efforts from other mainstream rightsholder groups, including ACE/MPA, may have to be reevaluated too.

In recent years, DMCA subpoenas have become one of the primary tools in the anti-piracy toolbox , so the outcome of this case may eventually turn out to be a landmark decision.

Given what’s at stake, it’s possible that other rightsholders may want to intervene in the matter, and Cloudflare may want to share its thoughts on the matter too.

—

A copy of Nhentai’s motion to quash the DMCA subpoena is available here (pdf)

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

Depending on personalities and intake of alcohol, a karaoke night can see people demanding to be next on the mic or scurrying away before they’re forced to do something they’ll later regret.

According to reports, karaoke in the West may be set for a resurgence but in Asia, karaoke (’empty orchestra’) never went away. In Japan, it still receives an 80%+ approval rating among high school students with around half of 20 to 24-year-olds regularly taking part.

With a global market reported to be worth around $5 billion, karaoke may make people smile but for investors it’s a serious business.

Hong Kong Customs: Operation Magpie

Cases reported by Hong Kong Customs over the past month include raids on drugs labs, convictions for laundering huge sums of money, two investigations into large-scale tobacco smuggling, and an operation to combat the provision of infringing karaoke songs. While some may feel the latter is in strange company, the karaoke operation appears to have been allocated plenty of resources.

Described as a “territory-wide enforcement operation” it ran for almost a month (July 2 to July 25) and targeted restaurants and so-called party rooms, which are often booked on a private basis by groups of friends. According to the official report, Customs didn’t hold back.

“During the operation, Customs officers raided 31 party rooms and one restaurant in various districts, including Kwun Tong, Causeway Bay, Tsuen Wan and Mong Kok. A total of 39 sets of karaoke devices used for playing suspected infringing songs, four sets of game consoles with suspected pirated electronic games, and a batch of audio and video equipment and network devices were seized.

“The total estimated market value is approximately $1.1 million (US$140,820),” Customs reports.

A raided room (Credit: Hong Kong Customs/screen enhanced by TF)

While music rightsholders were almost certainly involved in the operation, none are mentioned by name. In the major markets most music falls under the control of less than a handful of headline recording labels, so a rough guess might not be too wide of the mark.

18 People Arrested

Hong Kong Customs reports that eleven men and seven women, aged between 23 and 49, were arrested on suspicion of violating copyright law and/or trading law. Seven of those arrested were in charge of running venues, six were company directors, and five are described as “shop proprietors.”

Two of those arrested were charged with copyright offenses, while the remainder were released on bail pending further investigation. Customs reports that the investigation remains ongoing, so further arrests aren’t being ruled out.

Interesting equipment seized

A basic pirate karaoke setup used to consist of a hardware player or PC, fueled by rows of cumbersome VCDs carried around in a big bag or kept in some kind of storage box. After switching to DVDs, there was much less weight to carry or space to find; with the advent of USB drives, much less still.

The nature of every raided venue isn’t provided in the report. However, customs say they uncovered something more advanced than usual.

“[C]ustoms detected the first-ever case of providing infringing karaoke songs by using streaming technology. Through in-depth investigation and with the assistance of copyright owners, Customs officers raided one data center and four party rooms involved in the case, seizing five karaoke devices preloaded with suspected infringing karaoke songs and a batch of network equipment.”

On closer inspection, it’s possible that one or two of the photos supplied by customs show examples of the streaming system in operation.

Streaming Karaoke Piracy?

According to our rough translation, the text in the top left of the image says “Intelligent Song Request System” while the text on the right suggests a connection to WeChat.

The second image comes with no specific explanation either but the text at the top of the screen is not dissimilar to that highlighted above. When translated it says, “Welcome to the HD intelligent song request system” while other parts of the screen appear to have been covered for security reasons.

More Karaoke Streaming Piracy?

Potential punishments for operating a pirate karaoke system of any kind are fairly severe in Hong Kong.

Under local copyright law, “[A]ny person who, without the license of the copyright owner of a copyright work, possesses infringing copies of a copyright work for the purpose of, or in the course of, any trade or business with the view to it being used by any person commits an offense. The maximum penalty upon conviction is a fine of $50,000 (US$6,400) per infringing copy and imprisonment for four years,” Hong Kong Customs notes.

Those who engage in unfair trade practices, “including making false trade descriptions in relation to service, commits an offence. The maximum penalty upon conviction is a fine of $500,000 (US$64,000) and imprisonment for five years.”

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

As the home of Bollywood, India has a thriving movie industry that’s known all around the world.

At the same time, the country also has one of the highest piracy rates, which is seen as a major threat by industry insiders.

Following pressure from U.S. movie companies, India’s government recently agreed to update its Cinematograph Act to outlaw ‘cam’ piracy. Anyone recording or transmitting movies in a movie theater without permission now faces a three-year prison sentence.

The new anti-camming bill was implemented last year, which understandably makes the activity a higher priority for law enforcement. Criminal prosecutions are rare, however, and earlier this year international copyright groups complained that the law had yet to results in “meaningful steps” to deter piracy.

Movie Camming Arrest

Preventing movie piracy in a country with 1.4 billion people is a challenge indeed, but rightsholders must be pleased with an investigation that resulted in the arrest of a 33-year-old movie camming suspect late last week.

According to local news reports, an investigation by the Ernakulam city cyber police, headquartered in the office pictured below, led to the arrest of 33-year-old Jebe Stephan Raj.

The Madurai resident stands accused of various copyright-related violations. While the arrest itself is notable, the investigation leading up to it deserves to be highlighted as well.

CSI: India

The start of the case dates back to May of this year, when Supriya Menon, producer of the movie Guruvayoor Ambalanadayil , reported that the film had leaked on torrent sites and Telegram shortly after its premiere. This kick-started an investigation in which the police, assisted by other cyber experts, tried to identify the source.

With help from forensic watermarks, the investigation revealed that the pirated copy was recorded at the Ariesplex cinema in Thiruvananthapuram on May 16. While this information was useful, finding the cammer wasn’t straightforward, as there was no CCTV footage available.

“The CCTV footage was not available in the theater. Due to this, our investigation got stuck,” Mr. Vinod, the Cyber Police Station’s Sub-Inspector, told TNM .

The investigation didn’t end there, however. After analyzing the pirated film, investigators zoomed in for an enhanced view. With the movie theater now marked as a ‘crime scene’, the investigators used the camera angle to triangulate the seats from where the recording likely took place.

The potential seats were cross-referenced with ticketing data, which led to a phone number from outside the region. This number was more frequently used to book premiere tickets.

The owner of the phone number was tracked down, but since they didn’t travel to Thiruvananthapuram when the movie premiered, they couldn’t have recorded the pirated copy.

Instead of blowing their cover, the investigators decided to wait for the next time the same phone number booked a ticket. That came last week, for the ‘Raayan’ premiere at the Ariesplex cinema.

Arrest and Aftermath

The Ernakulam city cyber police alerted the local police about the situation and the 33-year-old man was arrested soon after he started recording the film. According to the police, the man used an iPhone 15, mounted on the cupholder with a tripod, to record the film.

The man reportedly confessed, also to his involvement with other recordings that previously surfaced online. According to some news reports, the suspect is described as an “admin” of the notorious pirate site TamilRockers, but we’ve seen no evidence for that.

Instead, it seems more plausible that the suspect was merely hired by outsiders to cam new films in exchange for money. That’s also what the local police report, according to TMN.

“He said he received instruction to record only using the latest iPhone and from a theater which has a good screen as well as sound quality. They used to pay him Rs 5,000 for recording each film,” police stated.

Needless to say, getting paid by someone to record a movie for roughly USD $60 is something different from being an administrator of one of the largest and most notorious Indian pirate sites. A follow-up investigation will likely reveal what role the defendant played exactly.

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

The promise that pretty much everything is available for free on the internet was one of the key driving forces behind surging uptake at the end of the century. The reality was more nuanced, of course.

The marketing and framing of this utopian vision relied on the relative naivety of most internet users. None were strangers to adverts appearing on TV, radio or in print, so the concept needed no explaining.

That advertising online wasn’t so passive, and over the next two decades would in some cases become an abusive, privacy-destroying nightmare, certainly wasn’t mentioned up front as part of the deal.

The revelation that adverts could be blocked edged into the mainstream around 15 years ago and developed into an industry in its own right. Easy to install, the AdBlock browser extension grew in popularity along with its rivals, leading to publishers of all kinds questioning their business models and whether ‘free’ even had a future.

Axel Springer Takes on Eyeo GmbH

German publisher Axel Springer, owner of brands including Bild and Die Welt, eventually decided that the ad blocking problem could be solved by its legal department. The company took legal action against Eyeo GmbH, the owner of what had become the multi-platform Adblock Plus, arguing that the software interfered with its business model.

After trips through regional courts and eventually Germany’s Supreme Court, in April 2018 Adblock Plus and Eyeo came out on top , having been found not in breach of competition law. After concluding that the solution to ad blocking must be available somewhere else in the law, Axel Springer filed a new lawsuit on new grounds.

The publisher claimed that AdBlock Plus “changed the programming code of websites thus directly accessing the legally protected offer of publishers.” In layman’s terms, by meddling with the appearance of the publisher’s website in users’ browsers, AdBlock Plus breached Axel Springer’s rights under copyright law. Eyeo dismissed the claim as “almost absurd” and Springer carried on regardless.

In January 2022, the Hamburg Regional Court decided that the publisher wasn’t entitled to an injunction; there was no unauthorized duplication and/or reworking of copyrighted computer programs as defined in copyright law, so neither Eyeo nor its users could be considered infringers.

“No company has the right to prohibit users from setting their own browser settings,” Eyeo declared after yet another win.

Axel Springer’s appeal meant that it would continue arguing to the contrary and at the Hamburg Higher Regional Court in 2023, the publisher lost and then appealed once again.

Federal Court of Justice (BGH) Must Decide

The case is now in the hands of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH). In advance of a hearing, the BGH summarized the matter as follows:

The plaintiff claims – as far as still relevant for the proceedings – that the programming of its websites constitutes computer programs within the meaning of Section 69a Paragraph 1 of the Copyright Act, to which it has exclusive rights of use.

When the web pages are called up by the web browser, the HTML file is transferred to the RAM on the user’s device. To display the HTML file, the web browser interprets its content, creating additional data structures. The plaintiff sees the influence on these data structures by the ad blocker as an unauthorized modification of a computer program within the meaning of Section 69c No. 2 of the Copyright Act. It is suing the defendant for an injunction and damages.

At a hearing last week, the BGH indicated that before making a decision, it would wait for the outcome in another case, one that began before the original Adblock first started to gain traction 15 years ago.

Waiting for Sony

After competition law had failed to produce results, Axel Springer referenced the Sony vs. Datel/Action Replay case after switching to copyright claims several years ago. With a decision in that case a decade and a half in the making, and seemingly headed in the wrong direction for Sony, this may be the last roll of the dice.

As detailed in our report early July, key questions in the Sony matter were previously referred by the BGH to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling.

The similarities in the cases are striking; while both Adblock Plus and Datel’s Playstation Portable cheat device interfere with the eventual output of Springer’s website and Sony’s games respectively, neither do so by circumvention of technical measures, or by copying any copyrighted material.

What Would a Win Look Like?

Each case offers its own complications but in the case of Adblock Plus, Springer’s arguments seem uncomfortably close to the legality of running a firewall. At the very least, the question of who gets to decide what data is allowed to pass through a network Springer doesn’t own, to a computer it doesn’t own either, seems like an important one.

Yet, if Springer somehow wins and Adblock Plus is compelled to remove its ad servers from Adblock updates, it still won’t be able to prevent users from carrying out an easy DIY fix. And since its enforcement powers inside people’s homes borders on nil, in practical terms that’s just another loss to add to the list.

Worse still, a win would likely serve as motivation to ensure that alternative ad blocking lists, for all kinds of systems, are not just kept up to date, but that Springer websites always receive extra special attention.

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

When it comes to the protection of its intellectual property rights, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is notoriously uncompromising. Hardly a surprise given the role the brand and other rights play in this global sporting event.

Non-Profits Always Worry About Piracy

With piracy always a concern to those at the top of the multi-billion dollar non-profit Olympic pyramid, those fears naturally filter down to other non-profit entities involved every four years.

Joining the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and International Paralympic Committee (IPC) is the Paris Organizing Committee for the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games (COJOP2024). In keeping with tradition, these bodies have been closely monitoring the piracy situation, with French news outlet L’Informe suggesting that a list of problematic pirate sites and services was already being prepared in April.

Action in Paris

In mid-July, the IOC, IPC and COJOP2024, commenced legal action against the leading French ISPs. This is a required step in the site-blocking process but offers no threat to the ISPs themselves. In common with a growing number of ISPs internationally, French ISPs don’t oppose site-blocking actions, not least since in many cases they stand to benefit due to broadcasting deals.

At the Paris Judicial Court last Wednesday, the trio obtained an ISP blocking order. In their application the rightsholders informed the Court that around 30 domains that had previously shown infringing behavior were accessible in France.

On that basis they argued that the Court should order the ISPs to implement blocking measures, to prevent their customers from watching unlicensed streams of Olympic events.

One of the problem streaming sites

With those likely to request blocking now very familiar with the process, the Paris court had no problem issuing a dynamic injunction. These are flexible orders that authorize blocking measures against services detailed initially, but can be modified as required in response to countermeasures, most commonly the deployment of new domains.

The Olympic organizations will simply have to inform telecoms regulator Arcom of any new domains, and those will be added to the blocklist, probably quite quickly.

The domains are listed at the end of this report but it appears that several are already redirecting or have moved to new homes.

As shown below, at least one of the targets has no DNS records and according to traffic data, may have been abandoned in June.

The measures as awarded will time out on September 8, to coincide with the end of the 2024 event.

The list of domains, as reported by L’Informe, reads as follows:

Crichd.tv
Crichdplayer.com
Kkzb8.net
Hplayer.ggapk.net
Worldcupfree.com
Redditsoccerstream.online
Bobres.net
Ip.sltv.be
App.kiwi-ip.tv
Dfwu.link
Ip1.mypsx.net
Supremtv.fr
Iceflashott.com
66768-task.cdn-o2.me
Ott.drmouad.uk
Fr.4k-ott.xyz
Necroiptv.vom
Neczmabfa.to
Lightnings.live
Necstraz.to
Neczbm.to
Wishiptv.com
Xcvip.wishiptv.com
Tv.expressiptv.xyz
Greenlinetv.xyz

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

The American copyright industry is one of the country’s primary exports, generating billions of dollars in annual revenue.

Whether it’s movies, music, software or other goods, U.S. companies are among the global market leaders.

To protect the interests of these businesses around the world, copyright holder groups can count on help from the U.S. Government. The annual list of ‘ notorious markets ,’ for example, is a well-known diplomatic mechanism to encourage other countries to up their enforcement actions and improve laws.

The same is true for trade deals and other policies, which often require trade partners to take action in favor of copyright holder interests.

The International Intellectual Property Alliance ( IIPA ), which represents the ESA, MPA, and RIAA, among others, has been the voice of major entertainment industries on this front. The Alliance regularly encourages the U.S. to further the international interests of its members, including in Africa.

The African Growth and Opportunity Act

A few weeks ago, the IIPA published its views on the latest eligibility review of the African Growth and Opportunity Act ( AGOA ). This process, led by the U.S. Trade Representative ( USTR ), determines which sub-Saharan African countries can enjoy certain trade benefits or, on the other end of the spectrum, be sanctioned.

This isn’t the first review of its kind; we have reported on similar efforts in the past and the most recent review features much of the same critique.

IIPA is concerned that South Africa isn’t doing enough to deter copyright infringement. There are also grave concerns that proposed “fair use” exceptions, which are partly modeled after U.S. law but go further on some issues, could lead to problems in the African country.

The critique from rightsholders hasn’t gone unnoticed by South Africa. President Ramaphosa previously sent the Copyright Amendment Bill (CAB) back to Parliament for a thorough review. That was four years ago and the South African Government is now making it clear that it doesn’t intend to let external forces dictate its law.

South Africa Defends Broad Fair Use Exceptions

This week, the Government sent a response to the USTR addressing IIPA’s critique. It points out that the copyright law hasn’t been implemented yet, so it wouldn’t make sense for the U.S. to use it as a basis for sanctions.

Technicalities aside, South Africa openly rejects IIPA’s critique. The copyright group’s arguments are not new; they were discussed during open review processes and considered by parliament, which simply disagrees with the notion that broad fair use exceptions are a problem.

Specifically, IIPA complained that the new law would create an “overbroad amalgamation of copyright exceptions that includes an expansive ‘fair use’ rubric” that’s “appended to a large number of extremely open-ended new exceptions and limitations to copyright protection, resulting in an unclear thicket of exceptions and limitations.”

In short, this means that the existing ‘fair dealing’ language will be extended with many ‘fair use’ exceptions, allowing the public to use copyrighted material without being punished for it. This can be for educational purposes, for example, but also for personal use as long as it passes the four fair use factors , which also are used in the US.

Regardless of the details, the South African Government says that it doesn’t plan to go back to the drawing board again.

“The issues IIPA has raised are not new and have been addressed previously and the public participation processes in Parliament recently have considered them again,” South Africa writes.

Unlike the IIPA, the Government of South Africa believes that its fair use proposal will benefit society as a whole. Better yet, it may even have a positive effect on the economy.

“Fair dealing in our current Copyright Act is outdated, limited and static, and does not address the digital world. Fair use, on the other hand, is progressive, dynamic and future proof and ‘digital-friendly’.

“Globally, research has found that fair use has not impacted negatively on the economy. On the contrary, there is evidence that shows that countries with open exceptions and fair use have high levels of innovation, economic growth and development,” South Africa adds.

US-Inspired and Innovation-Friendly

In its letter, the South African Government notes that more regimes are moving away from a closed list of fair dealing exceptions, to a more open system that can deal with future technologies and innovation.

The United States has set the example in this regard, with its fair use language that has been pretty much unchanged for nearly half a century.

“It is a fact that fair use was coded in the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 and has not had to be amended, as it applies to new technologies as they arise,” South Africa writes.

“Other countries have also adopted fair use in their copyright laws and more countries are considering it, because it is ‘future-proof’ and benefits users and producers of information and knowledge. Its four factors give clarity to what can be used and reused.”

The letter makes it clear that the concerns of IIPA and other rightsholder groups have been noted, but no more than that. South Africa clearly wants to move forward and this direct pushback against the lingering demands of the copyright lobby shows that the time for negotiations and backroom meetings has passed.

The Copyright Amendment Bill was formally adopted by South Africa’s Parliament in February, and was sent to President Ramaphosa for approval.

—

A copy of IIPA’s original critique, submitted in early June, can be found here (pdf) . This includes many other points and issues that we didn’t discuss. South Africa’s repsonse is available here (pdf) .

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