TorrentFreak's Latest News

YouTube Rippers Eye Supreme Court After Appeals Court Denies RehearingErnesto Van der Sar, 30 Jul 10:05 PM YouTube rippers are seen as the largest p

YouTube Rippers Eye Supreme Court After Appeals Court Denies Rehearing Ernesto Van der Sar, 30 Jul 10:05 PM YouTube 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 Back 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. ©2020 TorrentFreak | Office 21338 PO Box 4336 Manchester, North West M61 0BW United Kingdom Web Version   Preferences   Forward   Unsubscribe     Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company