Friday, July 31, 2020

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Steam's Beefed-Up VPN Ban is Anti-Competitive & Could Even Encourage Piracy
Andy Maxwell, 31 Jul 06:50 PM

steamSteam is the world's most popular gaming platform for good reason. It does its best to provide users with the best possible experience coupled with broadly reasonable pricing.

However, in common with many online services, it is possible to buy content from Steam for less than the locally advertised prices. All users need is a VPN that makes it appear they're in a country where the prices are set lower and they can save money.

How many people exploit this method is unclear but this week Steam Database reported that Steam has taken new measures to outlaw the practice.

To be clear, Steam has had a VPN ban in place for years, with its terms of service requiring users to agree that they "will not use IP proxying or other methods to disguise the place of your residence, whether to circumvent geographical restrictions on game content, to purchase at pricing not applicable to your geography, or for any other purpose."

Nevertheless, some users have obviously been ignoring the rules so Steam has decided to take additional measures to close the loophole. It's Steam's business and Steam's decision but from a customer perspective in a global digital trading environment, it feels somewhat anti-consumer.

Any big business involved in international trade could explain in precise detail why it's entirely reasonable to charge people in different countries more or less for exactly the same product. Sadly for them, most customers simply do not care and may even feel insulted when they learn that they're a victim of geo-discrimination.

Imagine being in a regular shop where products have multiple price tags that get progressively more expensive depending on where you live and how much you potentially earn. In common with Steam's restrictions, people would look to circumvent that system. And why not, doesn't everyone enjoy getting a bargain and saving money?

The interesting thing here is that the average person probably doesn't know about the VPN 'trick', so it's much more likely to be exploited by tech-savvy users. Indeed, it's not uncommon to hear these kinds of tips being shared on piracy sites, where people can easily get games for free but are actually prepared to buy them when the 'VPN discount' is applied.

The big question is how many of these people could turn to piracy when they are forced to pay full price for their games again. It's impossible to say with any accuracy but price is a major issue for many people, as Steam itself recognizes when it gives lower prices and offers to residents of countries where it believes it can't charge more.

Interestingly, there is another trick to get cheap games from Steam and elsewhere which, according to game developers themselves, is actually worse than piracy. So-called 'key resellers' are widely hated by devs, with some saying they'd prefer it if people pirated their content instead.

Given a choice between a 'VPN discount' and a key reseller, many price-sensitive users would choose the former. Following Steam's new measures, there's much less choice.

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

APK Download Site Must Pay $150,000 For Offering Pirate Streaming Apps
Ernesto Van der Sar, 31 Jul 11:31 AM

showboxLast year, a group of movie companies filed a lawsuit against the operators of various websites that promoted and distributed so-called pirate apps.

These apps, including 'Showbox' and 'Popcorn Time,' enable users to stream pirated movies via torrents and direct sources.

Movie Companies Sue Pirate App Distributers

The movie companies, including those behind "The Hitman's Bodyguard," "London Has Fallen," and "Hunter Killer" filed a complaint at a U.S. District Court in Hawaii accusing these sites of facilitating massive piracy.

"The Defendants misleadingly promote the Show Box app as a legitimate means for viewing content to the public, who eagerly install the Show Box app to watch copyright protected content, thereby leading to profit for the Defendants," the 58-page complaint read.

In the months that followed the movie companies signed several consent judgments with the defendants. While none of these were the original app developers, they indeed distributed the software and took the blame for their actions.

Not all defendants replied, however. Vietnamese man Nghi Phan Nhat, who allegedly operated the APK download portal 'apkmirrordownload.com,' was served but never responded in court. The pirate apps had disappeared from the site but the movie companies wanted more.

Last September, they requested $150,000 in statutory damages. In addition, they asked for an injunction ordering third-party services such as hosting companies and domain registrars to stop doing business with the site.

Magistrate Judge Argues That Court Doesn't Have Jurisdiction

Initially, this request wasn't well received. Hawaii's Magistrate Judge Kenneth Mansfield advised the court to deny it. There wasn't sufficient evidence that the defendant purposefully directed activities at the US, he argued, which is a requirement for the court to have jurisdiction.

The movie companies' attorney, Kerry Culpepper, opposed this recommendation, with success. The district court rejected the findings and recommendations, concluding that the court has personal jurisdiction over the Vietnamese man.

The operator used the services of US companies such as Namesilo and CloudFlare, for example, and also had a DMCA policy page, which specifically refers to US law.

"The display of this policy on the APK Site shows that Nhat was aware of, and attempted to invoke the protections of, potentially applicable United States law," the Hawaii District Court wrote (pdf).

$150,000 Piracy Damages is Appropriate After All

Earlier this month the Court ruled that a default judgment is appropriate (pdf), awarding the requested $150,000 in statutory damages. That represents $30,000 per movie title. In addition, it granted over $10,000 in attorneys' fees and costs.

default judgment

The movie companies didn't get everything they asked for, however. The district court denied an injunction that would prevent Cloudflare and Namesilo from offering services to the site.

"The Court finds that the request for Namesilo and CloudFlare to stop 'facilitating access' to Defendant Nhat's domain and websites that 'engaged in the distribution and promotion of the Show Box app' is overly broad," the court wrote in its earlier order.

The last request would have been futile anyway as apkmirrordownload.com is no longer online. Whether the movie companies will indeed get their damages from the operator is also uncertain.

This case is important in respect of future cases against foreign site operators. As the lawsuit against the YouTube rippers Flvto.biz and 2conv.com has also shown, courts have been divided over when and under what circumstances foreign sites can be held liable in the US.

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

Thursday, July 30, 2020

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

YouTube Rippers Eye Supreme Court After Appeals Court Denies Rehearing
Ernesto Van der Sar, 30 Jul 10:05 PM

4th circuit appeals courtYouTube rippers are seen as the largest piracy threat to the music industry, and record labels are doing their best to shut them down.

In 2017, YouTube-MP3, the world's largest ripping site at the time, shut down after being sued, and several others followed voluntarily.

A group of music companies hoped to achieve the same with FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com. The sites' Russian owner Tofig Kurbanov was taken to court in the United States last year, accused of facilitating mass copyright infringement.

No Easy Win for the Music Companies

The music companies were hoping for a quick win but they got the opposite. Kurbanov fought back immediately and before the copyright issues were discussed, the complaint was already dismissed.

A Virginia federal court ruled that the music companies lacked personal jurisdiction as the sites were operated from abroad and didn't 'purposefully' target or interact with US users.

This finding was not without controversy. The music companies disagreed and appealed the matter at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which sent the case back to the district court last month.

In a unanimous decision, the appeals court found that there are more than sufficient facts to conclude that Kurbanov purposefully conducted business in the US, specifically, the state of Virginia.

YouTube Rippers Request a Rehearing

The operator of the YouTube ripping sites was unhappy with the ruling so requested a rehearing of the matter before the full court. According to the defense team, the appeal court's decision goes against previous rulings and warrants reconsideration.

The panel's decision – specifically the finding that personal jurisdiction could be premised on the websites' failure to geoblock visitors from the U.S. (and allowing advertising brokers to geotarget visitors) – is an issue of exceptional importance," the petition read.

Rehearing Denied

The appeals court judges disagree, however. This week the petition for a rehearing was denied. In a short but clear order, the clerk writes that none of the judges took action.

"The petition for rehearing en banc was circulated to the full court. No judge requested a poll under Fed. R. App. P. 35. The court denies the petition for rehearing en banc," the order (pdf) reads.

Supreme Court?

Previously, Kurbanov's legal team warned that the appeals court set a dangerous precedent. Counsel Evan Fray-Witzer said that the ruling will have a broad impact on foreign site operators.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, the attorney now says that they are considering petitioning the Supreme Court. District court rulings on these personal jurisdiction issues have been mixed and a Supreme Court ruling could provide more clarity.

"The issue is important enough that we intend to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court," Fray-Witzer tells TorrentFreak.

"The Supreme Court has not yet decided a case concerning personal jurisdiction based on internet contacts and we think this case would be a good opportunity for the Court to address the issue head-on."

If the matter doesn't go to the Supreme Court, the case will go back to the district court for a review of the jurisdiction matter in full.

In its first decision on the motion to dismiss, the court chose not to conduct a "reasonability test" because the other arguments were sufficient to warrant a dismissal. This has now changed.

The district court can still dismiss the matter over a lack of jurisdiction if the complaint fails to pass the reasonability test. If the court does decide that it has jurisdiction, Kurbanov will have to defend himself and his sites against the record labels' copyright infringement claims.

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

Internet Archive Tells Court its Digital Library is Protected Under Fair Use
Andy Maxwell, 30 Jul 09:33 AM

Internet ArchiveBack in March the Internet Archive (IA) launched its National Emergency Library (NEL)

Built on its existing Open Library, the NEL aimed to assist "displaced learners" with initially unlimited access to more than a million books.

Already angered by the activities of the Open Library, major publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley and Penguin Random House responded by filing a massive copyright infringement lawsuit against the Internet Archive.

Background to Publishers' Lawsuit

In their complaint the publishers equated the libraries to pirate services, stating they had no right to scan books and lend them out. Claiming direct and secondary copyright infringement, they demanded millions of dollars in statutory damages.

In June, IA founder Brewster Kahle called on the publishers to make peace but with no public sign of that happening, the lawsuit is progressing.

This week the most significant responsive document so far appeared on the docket, detailing Internet Archive's answer to the complaint and its affirmative defenses. It begins with a lengthy opening statement which in part seeks to highlight synergies between the now-warring factions.

Internet Archive's Answer – Controlled Digital Lending

"Like Plaintiffs, the Internet Archive believes that '[b]ooks are a cornerstone of our culture and system of democratic self-government' and 'play a critical role in education.' Accordingly, democratizing access to information, and facilitating access to books in particular, has been a core part of the Internet Archive's mission for decades," it reads.

"But, for many people, distance, time, cost, or disability pose daunting and sometimes insurmountable barriers to accessing physical books. Digitizing and offering books online for borrowing unlocks them for communities with limited or no access, creating a lifeline to trusted information."

The statement spends time explaining the process of CDL – Controlled Digital Lending – noting that the Internet Archive provides a digital alternative to traditional libraries carrying physical books. As such, it "poses no new harm to authors or the publishing industry."

Not only that, CDL as practiced by the Internet Archive is entirely legal, the defendants argue.

Legal Under the Copyright Act's Fair Use Doctrine

"The Internet Archive has made careful efforts to ensure its uses are lawful. The Internet Archive's CDL program is sheltered by the fair use doctrine, buttressed by traditional library protections. Specifically, the project serves the public interest in preservation, access and research—all classic fair use purposes," IA's answer reads.

"As for its effect on the market for the works in question, the books have already been bought and paid for by the libraries that own them. The public derives tremendous benefit from the program, and rights holders will gain nothing if the public is deprived of this resource."

In addition to the usual laundry list of responses to various claims and allegations made in the complaint, the Internet Archive ultimately arrives at the meat of its answer.

Seven Affirmative Defenses

In its first affirmative defense, IA argues that the complaint fails to state a claim. In other words, even if the allegations in the complaint were found to be true, they are insufficient to establish a cause of action.

As expected, IA's second affirmative defense centers on fair use, arguing that even when the publishers' copyrighted materials were used, such use is protected under law. Furthermore, IA argues that the plaintiffs' claims are barred "in whole in part" by the First Sale Doctrine, including under 17 U.S.C. § 109.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the claims of copyright infringement and Internet Archive's positive responses to takedown notices, the answer states that IA is also protected "in whole or in part" by 17 U.S.C. § 512(c), commonly known as the safe harbor provisions of the Copyright Act.

Other affirmative defenses state that the publishers are not entitled to statutory damages because IA believed that its use of the copyrighted content was covered by fair use, while the complaint flounders due to the Statute of Limitations and the doctrine of laches.

As previously reported, the Internet Archive's defense is being handled by California-based law firm Durie Tangri and is supported by the team at the EFF.

Internet Archive's Answer and Affirmative Defenses can be obtained here (pdf)

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

Wednesday, July 29, 2020

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Court Lifts Copyright Troll Roadblock but Puts Brakes on Piracy Settlement Bonanza
Ernesto Van der Sar, 29 Jul 09:10 PM

stopIn the United States, federal courts are still swamped with lawsuits filed against alleged BitTorrent pirates.

This phenomenon, often dubbed as 'copyright trolling', started over a decade ago and remains ongoing.

The 'trolling' scheme can be both simple and lucrative. Rightsholders file complaints against "John Does" who are initially only known by an IP-address. They then request a subpoena to obtain the subscriber details from ISPs and demand a settlement from the account holder.

This tactic is also employed by Strike 3 Holdings, the most active filer of piracy lawsuits in the US. This works just fine in many cases but the company has had some setbacks as well.

Copyright Troll Roadblock

One such issue came via a devastating order issued by Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider last October which denied Strike 3 expedited discovery in several cases. The prevented Strike 3 from obtaining the personal details of the allegedly-pirating account holders from ISPs.

According to Judge Schneider, the underlying complaints included very few facts. Strike 3 has an IP-address but doesn't know if the account holder is involved in the actual infringements. Put differently, these cases are futile.

"The most fundamental basis of the Court's decision is its conclusion that, as pleaded, Strike 3's complaints are futile. The Court denies Strike 3 the right to bootstrap discovery based on a complaint that does not pass muster," the Judge wrote.

Strike 3 Appeals

Strike 3 disagreed and appealed the order, with success. Late last month, New Jersey District Court Judge Joel Hillman reversed the decision. The copyright holder is now allowed to subpoena ISPs for personal details of alleged infringers.

At first sight, this appears to be a clear win for Strike 3. However, it comes with a rather significant catch.

In addition to allowing the subpoenas, Magistrate Judge Schneider was subsequently tasked with writing a protective order to balance the rights of Strike 3 with the privacy interests of the defendants. This order, which was filed this week, puts the brakes on Strike 3's settlement efforts.

First off, the protective order prohibits the rightsholder from making the defendants' personal details public. Instead, they should be referred to as Does. However, the real sting comes after that.

Putting The Brakes on Settlements

"Plaintiff is prohibited from initiating, directly or indirectly, any settlement communications with defendant (or any person associated with defendant or the IP address), unless (1) that party is represented by counsel and (2) their counsel initiates settlement discussions.

"On request of plaintiff or an unrepresented party, submitted to the Court at any time, settlement shall be conducted under supervision of the Court."

This means that Strike 3 is no longer allowed to propose settlements. While cases can still be settled, defendants must take the initiative, and only if they are represented through an attorney.

Out-of-court settlements, which are very common in these copyright-trolling cases, are no longer an option either. Everything msut be supervised by the court.

The order, more or less, requires Strike 3 to pursue the cases on their merits, something it prefers not to do. This will not only increase litigation costs, but will also require the copyright holder to have their evidence in order.

A copy of the protective order, issued by Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider, is available here (pdf)

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

Disney Obtains New 'Dynamic' Court Order to Block 118 'Pirate' Domains
Andy Maxwell, 29 Jul 11:55 AM

Page BlockedMajor Hollywood studios and other rightsholders consider site-blocking an effective tool to combat rampant online infringement. Opponents, on the other hands, view the tactic not only as a blunt instrument but one that can be easily circumvented.

What is clear, however, is that site-blocking is more effective when it targets many sites. This helps to ensure that when one site is blocked, users don't flood to other platforms that aren't.

As a result, entertainment companies keep returning to courts around the world to obtain orders requiring ISPs to add even more sites to their blacklists. Following an order handed down by the High Court in Delhi this week, Indian ISPs will have to add almost 120 new 'pirate' domains to their filtering systems.

Disney's Application to Block 118 'Pirate' Domains

The action, filed by Disney Enterprises "and others", was heard via video-conferencing due to the coronavirus pandemic. Defendants include dozens of pirate sites, Internet service providers, the Department of Communications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY).

The application notes that the plaintiffs are businesses incorporated in the United States and are all involved in the creation, production and distribution of motion pictures and other cinematographic works.

"The plaintiffs are aggrieved by the fact that certain rogue websites are enabling the down-streaming of their creative work which includes films and other entertainment programs, albeit, without requisite licenses. The plaintiffs aver that they have the copyright in the content of their creative works and, hence, need to be protected," a judgment handed down on Monday reads.

Range of 'Pirate' Domains Offering Movies and Cartoons/Anime

The list includes 37 'pirate' site defendants, none of whom were present to mount any kind of opposition. There appears to be a particular focus on sites specializing in anime and cartoons, including the massively popular Nyaa.si which took fifth position in our annual overview of the world's most popular torrent sites.

Other notable entries listed in the application and specializing in this genre include Horriblesubs, Kisscartoon/Kimcartoon, Wcostream/watchcartoononline, kissanime, gogoanime, and 9anime. The majority of these platforms have multiple domains detailed in the application, so Disney and partners are probably hoping to wipe them out quickly to avoid a resurgence.

While streaming sites dominate the domains to be blocked, a handful of torrent sites are included in the application. In addition to Nyaa, large private torrent site IPTorrents also gets a mention, with the plaintiffs demanding that 11 domains/sub-domains are blocked by ISPs. TorrentDownload and YourBitTorrent2 complete the list.

Finally, the application demands that named proxy sites are also blocked by ISPs, including Unblockit.red and Proxyof.com. However, the judge's order appears to consider a situation where the named sites deploy unblocking mechanisms of their own.

'Dynamic' Injunction Handed Down

The "injunction shall also operate in respect of the mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites, which are put in play by [the defendant pirate sites] to grant access to the websites [referred to in the order]," the judgment reads.

Overall, the judge was happy to hand down the blocking order, noting that the plaintiffs are suffering "considerable damage" to their commercial interests. The balance of interests is in favor of the entertainment companies, the judge added, while handing down the following instructions;

"[The pirate site defendants] are restrained from, in any manner, hosting, streamlining, reproducing, distributing, making available to the public and/or communicating to the public or facilitating the same on their websites through the internet in any manner whatsoever, any cinematograph work, content, program and show in which the plaintiffs have copyright."

While the injunction is unlikely to be followed by many or indeed any of the sites listed, the Department of Communications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology are instructed to inform local ISPs that they must block the domains covered by the application. Furthermore, the plaintiffs can also file a new application if they need to block new domains, making this a so-called 'dynamic' order.

"The plaintiffs are given liberty to file an application…to array other rogue websites if the same are discovered after the issuance of the instant interim order. The purpose being that the Court, in these cases, needs to dynamically monitor such egregious illegality and, if necessary, pass interim orders to restrain similar rogue websites from illegally streaming the creative content in which the plaintiffs have a copyright," the judge concludes.

The judgment of the Delhi High Court can be found here (pdf)

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company