Thursday, April 2, 2020

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

'YouTube is Not Required to Share Email and IP-Addresses of Movie Pirates'
Ernesto, 02 Apr 09:51 PM

YouTube's users upload millions of hours of videos every month. As with any user-generated content site, this also includes copyright-infringing content.

This abuse is a thorn in the side of some copyright holders. Although they can send takedown requests to remove pirated content, some companies want to go after the infringers.

This is what happened in Germany, where the local company "Constantin Film" went after three YouTube users. These account holders had uploaded copies of the movies "Scary Movie 5" or "Parker" without permission, which were then viewed thousands of times.

The movie company demanded that Google and YouTube should share the email addresses, IP-addresses, and phone numbers that were tied to these accounts and took the matter to a local court.

Initially, this request was turned down by the Frankfurt District Court, but the Higher Regional Court later ruled that YouTube should hand over the associated email addresses, but not the IP-addresses and phone numbers.

Neither party was happy with this outcome and the case was sent to Germany's Federal Court of Justice for another ruling. Before making a final judgment, the German court sent some questions to the EU Court of Justice, asking for input on how to interpret EU law in this matter.

While both German and EU legislation grant copyright holders the right to know who the copyright infringer is, it's not clear what information should be handed over. Article 8 of the EU Copyright Directive from 2004 doesn't go any further than mentioning "names and addresses" without any further specification.

To clarify the position, Germany's Federal Court asked whether the law should be interpreted in a way that also covers email addresses, phone numbers, and IP-addresses. In an advisory opinion released by EU Advocate General Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe, this should not be the case.

The Advocate General believes that the 'names' and 'addresses' mentioned in Article 8 should be interpreted literally. In other words, it refers to the usual meaning in everyday language, which doesn't cover email addresses, IP-addresses, and certainly not phone numbers.

"There is little doubt that, in everyday language, the concept of a person's 'address', about which the referring court asks in particular, covers only the postal address, as YouTube and Google have rightly submitted," Saugmandsgaard Øe writes.

The Advocate General understands that Constantin Film would like this language to be updated, so it also includes digital addresses, but he adds that this is something that lawmakers must address, not the court.

"Article 8(2) […] must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of 'names and addresses' set out in that provision does not cover, in respect of a user who has uploaded files which infringe intellectual property rights, the email address, the telephone number, the IP address used to upload those files or the IP address used when the user's account was last accessed.

"Accordingly, the Member States are not obliged, under that provision, to provide for the possibility, for the competent judicial authorities, to order that that information be provided in the context of proceedings concerning an infringement of an intellectual property right."

This means that, based on this opinion, Germany's Federal court can order YouTube and Google to hand over the names and postal addresses of the uploaders, but not the emails, IP-addresses, and phone numbers.

The Advocate General's advice is not binding. However, in most cases the recommendations are followed by the EU Court of Justice, which will likely issue its final verdict later this year.

Drom: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, torrent sites and more. We also have an annual VPN review.

Kendall Jenner Posts Video of Herself on Instagram, Gets Sued For Copyright Infringement
Andy, 02 Apr 11:14 AM

A paper published back in 2007 pondered the possibility that on any given day, regular people may commit dozens of copyright infringements, without really knowing it.

While all pitfalls are difficult to predict, the public is much better informed 13 years on and tech-savvy individuals are now more likely to spot potential pitfalls, especially when they carry out more obvious acts such as uploading copyrighted content to social media.

But despite the millions of takedown notices filed every year alongside thousands of lawsuits, even those with massive legal teams and vast resources can make costly errors. Case in point – Kendall Jenner, her Instagram account, and a video for which the model allegedly doesn't own the copyrights.

Titled 'bye nyc' and posted to Instagram on September 13, 2019, it features Jenner leaving a building and being greeted by the usual crowd of photographers aiming to get a shot of the superstar model. It lasts just a few seconds but was nevertheless gobbled up by Jenner's army of fans who, to date, have viewed the clip almost 22.8 million times.

While many of these kinds of clips attract no negative attention from the people who took them, that isn't the case here. A lawsuit filed Tuesday in a California district court has New York resident Angela Ma suing Jenner (and her company Kendall Jenner, Inc.) for blatant copyright infringement.

"This is an action for copyright infringement under Section 501 of the Copyright Act," the complaint reads.

"This action arises out of Defendants' unauthorized publication and public display of a copyrighted video (the 'Video') of defendant Kendall Jenner. The Video and the copyright in the Video are owned and registered by Plaintiff."

Ma says she has registered the video with the Copyright Office (Reg. # PA 2-211-871) which is important as without an application she wouldn't be able to sue. But sue she is.

Claiming that the video was viewed "over 13 million times" (a figure that is soon set to double), Ma says that the clip wasn't licensed to anyone for any use and therefore Jenner did not have permission to post the video on Instagram.

"Defendants infringed Plaintiff's copyright in the Video by reproducing and publicly displaying the Video on the Website. Defendants were not, and have never been, licensed or otherwise authorized to reproduce, publicly display, distribute and/or use the Video," the complaint notes.

"The acts of Defendants complained of herein constitute infringement of Plaintiff's copyright and exclusive rights under copyright in violation of Sections 106 and 501 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501."

The lawsuit says that Jenner's infringement wasn't accidental. On the contrary, it was "willful, intentional, and purposeful" and in disregard of Ma's rights as the copyright holder. As a result, Jenner must now compensate for the damage caused in one of two ways.

On the one hand, Jenner could pay damages and hand over all the income generated by the infringement. In that case, Ma wants Jenner to "account for all profits, income, receipts" so that can be entered into the calculation.

On the other, Ma states that she is entitled to statutory damages of up to $150,000 for the "willful" nature of the infringement. In any event, the New York resident also wants to be compensated for attorneys' fees and full costs.

In addition, Ma's attorneys want the court to order Jenner to remove the video from Instagram. Why that wasn't actioned earlier directly with the social media company isn't detailed.

Angela Ma is demanding a trial by jury but it seems unlikely that the case will progress that far. Like many such actions, it will probably disappear into the ether following a private settlement.

The copyright infringement lawsuit filed in California can be found here (pdf)

Drom: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, torrent sites and more. We also have an annual VPN review.

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: