Friday, June 26, 2020

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Appeals Court Revives Record Labels' Lawsuit Against YouTube Rippers
Ernesto Van der Sar, 26 Jun 10:17 PM

flvtoIn 2018, a group of prominent record labels sued two very popular YouTube rippers, FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com.

The labels, including Universal, Warner Bros, and Sony, accused the sites of copyright infringement and hoped to shut them down quickly. But that didn't go as planned.

The Russian operator of the sites, Tofig Kurbanov, fought back with a motion to dismiss. He argued that the Virginia federal court lacked personal jurisdiction as he operated the sites from abroad and didn't target or interact with US users.

The District Court agreed with this assessment. In a verdict released early last year, Judge Claude M. Hilton dismissed the case. The court carefully reviewed how the sites operated and found no evidence that they purposefully targeted either Virginia or the United States.

The record labels and the RIAA were disappointed with the outcome and swiftly announced an appeal.

Appeals Court Reverses the Dismissal

Today, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decided on the matter. In a unanimous decision, it reversed the District Court's ruling. This means that the motion to dismiss is off the table and that the case will be revived.

The Fourth Circuit Court found that there are more than sufficient facts to conclude that Kurbanov purposefully conducted business in the US, specifically, the state of Virginia. That the site doesn't charge users is not seen as being crucial.

"To start, his contacts with Virginia are plentiful. In the relevant period, between October 2017 and September 2018, more than half a million unique visitors went to the Websites, totaling nearly 1.5 million visits. These visits made Virginia one of the most popular states in terms of unique visitors as well as number of visits," the Appeals Court notes.

"In addition to the volume of visitors, we also find the nature of the repeated interaction between the Websites and visitors to be a commercial relationship," the order adds, stressing that the "mere absence of a monetary exchange does not automatically imply a non-commercial relationship."

On top of that, the decision also weighs in the fact that the sites have a registered DMCA agent, worked with US-based advertisers, and used US-based servers and domain registrars at some point.

Contrary to the District Court, the Appeals Court also finds that FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com targeted Virginia users, as the websites were globally accessible. No attempts were made to block Virginia visitors while the site did profit from the data that was harvested from these people.

"In sum, we conclude Appellants' copyright infringement claims arise out of Kurbanov's activities directed at Virginia," the Court concludes.

The result of the ruling is that the District Court dismissal is off the table, so the lawsuit at the lower court can continue. This doesn't mean that Kurbanov has lost that case though, but he will possibly have to defend himself and his sites against the record labels' copyright infringement claims.

Before that happens, the District Court will first have to reconsider the jurisdiction challenges in full. In its first decision on the motion to dismiss, it chose not to conduct a "reasonability test" because the other arguments were sufficient to warrant a dismissal. This has now changed.

'A Dangerous Precedent'

The record labels will be pleased with this decision but according to Kurbanov and his legal team, it sets a dangerous precedent. Counsel Evan Fray-Witzer informs us that if this ruling stands, it will have a broad impact on foreign site operators.

"The idea that a website operator could be subject to personal jurisdiction because the site has a DMCA agent would be a horrible precedent if allowed to stand: all it will mean is that foreign website operators will forgo having a DMCA agent, something that is beneficial to content producers," Fray-Witzer says.

"If Mr. Kurbanov – who has never once visited the United States – can be hauled into a U.S. Court simply because he created a website that turned out to be popular in the U.S., then any American who creates a website can expect to be subject to personal jurisdiction in China, Russia, and every other country in the world."

Kurbanov and his legal team are still considering their options at this time but they don't expect this to be the end of the jurisdictional battle, where further appeals are still possible.

A copy of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision is available here (pdf).

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

EFF & Heavyweight Legal Team Will Defend Internet Archive's Digital Library Against Publishers
Andy Maxwell, 26 Jun 12:26 PM

In March and faced with the chaos caused by the coronavirus pandemic, the Internet Archive (IA) launched its National Emergency Library (NEL)

Built on its existing Open Library, the NEL provided users with unlimited borrowing of more than a million books, something which the IA hoped would help "displaced learners" restricted by quarantine measures.

Publishers Sue Internet Archive

After making a lot of noise in opposition to both the Open and Emergency libraries, publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley and Penguin Random House filed a massive copyright infringement lawsuit against the Internet Archive.

Declaring the libraries little more than 'pirate' services that have no right to scan books and lend them out, even in a controlled fashion, the publishers bemoaned the direct threat to their businesses and demanded millions of dollars in statutory damages.

Earlier this month the IA announced the early closure of the NEL, with IA founder Brewster Kahle calling for an end to litigation and the start of cooperation. There are no public signs of either. Indeed, the opposing sides are preparing for action.

EFF and Attorneys Team Up to Defend IA

Last evening the EFF announced that it is joining forces with California-based law firm Durie Tangri to defend the Internet Archive against a lawsuit which they say is a threat to IA's Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) program.

The CDL program allows people to check out scanned copies of books for which the IA and its partners can produce physically-owned copies. The publishers clearly have a major problem with the system but according to IA and EFF, the service is no different from that offered by other libraries.

"EFF is proud to stand with the Archive and protect this important public service," says EFF Legal Director Corynne McSherry.

"Controlled digital lending helps get books to teachers, children and the general public at a time when that is more needed and more difficult than ever. It is no threat to any publisher's bottom line."

Durie Tangri partner Joe Gratz agrees, noting that there is no issue with the Internet Archive lending books to one patron at a time.

"That's what libraries have done for centuries, and we're proud to represent Internet Archive in standing up for the rights of libraries in the digital age," he adds.

With Gratz on the team, the IA and EFF are clearly taking matters seriously. His profile states that he's as "comfortable on his feet in court as he is hashing over source code with a group of engineers", adding that he represented Google in the Google Book Search copyright cases.

Also on the team, according to the lawsuit docket, is Harvard Law School graduate Adi Kamdar, who was an affiliate with the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society. Before that, Kamdar was an EFF activist advocating on issues of privacy, speech, and intellectual property policy.

Publishers Have Brought in the Big Guns Too

The docket reveals some prominent veterans acting for the publishers too.

Matthew Jan Oppenheim, for example, served as lead counsel in the record-breaking $1 billion jury verdict against Cox Communications for the music industry, and the $34 million verdict against Book Dog Books for the publishing industry.

A former partner at the music industry law firm Jenner & Block, Oppenheim previously worked at the RIAA, handling landmark cases against Napster and Grokster.

Meredith Santana represented Miley Cyrus in the "We Can't Stop' copyright infringement lawsuit while Linda Steinman represents and counsels content providers on how to protect their work from "challenges ranging from aggregators to ad blockers."

War or Peace – Too Early To Say

It's still not too late for the parties to reach a negotiated settlement but given the legal forces now massing on both sides, that is becoming a more distant prospect.

The stakes are high for all parties and beyond, with either side coming out on top having the potential to affect how the public can consume scanned and borrowed content in the future.

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: