Monday, March 1, 2021

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

US Court: Pirate Streaming Sites Operator Must Pay $16.8m in Damages
Andy Maxwell, 01 Mar 07:35 PM

Streaming KeyIn November 2019, US broadcaster DISH Network filed a lawsuit in a Texas district court targeting the operators of 15 domains used to illegally stream DISH content to the public.

The domains – Freetvall.net, Freetvall.xyz, Freetvall.me, Freetvall.live, Livetvcafe.com, Livetvcafe.net, Livetvcafe.me, Time4tv.com, Time4tv.net, Time4tv.me, Cricket-tv.net, Crickettv.me, Tv4embed.com, and A1livetv.com – offered a wide range of embedded TV channels, not only from DISH but other broadcasters including Sky and ESPN.

DISH's Exclusive License to Broadcast in the United States

In its complaint, DISH listed around two dozen channels offered by the network of sites. Through licensing agreements, DISH holds the exclusive rights to distribute and publicly perform the channels in the United States. The sites had no such permission.

As the lawsuit progressed, DISH concluded that all of the sites were operated by one person, who was subsequently named as Nauman Khalid.

DISH claimed that the defendant provided users in the United States with links to unauthorized streams of its protected channels by collecting them from other locations on the Internet and organizing them on his websites. The whole operation was monetized with advertising.

DISH Notified Defendant of Infringement Dozens of Times

During a period spanning several years, DISH notified Khalid "at least" 49 times that he was infringing the company's rights by providing infringing links to a US audience. DISH backed up this effort by sending similar notifications to Internet services utilized by the sites but Khalid "intentionally interfered" with these by changing providers or using new links.

DISH alleged that Khalid "induced and materially contributed" to offenses carried out in breach of US copyright law. Khalid was served in Pakistan but chose not to participate in the legal action against him in the US. As a result, DISH sought to obtain a default judgment from the court.

Court's Decision – Direct and Contributory Infringement

In a memorandum opinion and order signed last week, the court found that the works at issue in the suit were authored in countries outside the United States but because those countries are all signatories to the Berne Convention, all are protected under US copyright law. In any event, all works were registered with the US Copyright Office.

In respect of the allegations of direct infringement, the court found that when Khalid provided links that enabled the retransmission of DISH content, that infringed the company's rights to publicly perform those works. The court further found that Khalid had knowledge of these infringements since he had received at least some of the takedown notices sent by DISH.

Moving to DISH's allegations of contributory copyright infringement, the court found that by selecting infringing links to channels and by organizing and maintaining them, Khalid "created the audience" to complete the direct infringement carried out by the unlicensed provider of the channels. As such, the allegations of inducement and material contribution were found to valid.

Question of Damages

When claiming damages, DISH had the option to choose actual damages and profits or statutory damages – the company settle on the latter. That meant the broadcaster could obtain $30,000 per infringed work and up to $150,000 if the infringement was committed willfully.

DISH elected to pursue statutory damages for 112 works registered with the US Copyright Office, to the maximum of $150,000 per infringement. The company alleged that even after sending takedown notices, Khalid continued to provide access to the broadcaster's channels.

In support of its claim for maximum statutory damages, DISH told the court that Khalid had been infringing its rights for between five and nine years, claiming that its channels were viewed over 5.5 million times. The court agreed that the websites had caused DISH to incur substantial losses, adding that the offending was considerable.

"Because of the sheer breadth and duration of the infringement, the failure of Khalid to participate in this proceeding, his willingness to defy almost 50 notices of infringement and to evade service providers' attempts to halt the infringement, and the likelihood that he profited from the infringement and caused substantial losses of revenue to DISH, the court finds that an award of maximum statutory damages — $150,000 per registered work — is appropriate," the decision reads.

"Therefore, the total amount of damages that Khalid must pay DISH for the infringement of the 112 registered works is $16,800,000."

Permanent Injunction

In addition to damages, DISH demanded a permanent injunction and the court was happy to comply. First turning to Khalid and anyone acting in concert with him, the court issued an injunction enjoining all parties from transmitting, streaming, distributing, linking, hosting, promoting or advertising any of DISH's protected channels in the United States.

Moving to non-parties, such as those providing any kind of technical service enabling the defendant to infringe, the court permanently enjoined all entities providing servers, hosting (including data centers), domain hosting/registration/proxy services, CDNs, advertising and social media, from doing business with Khalid that involves breaching DISH's rights.

Specifically, the court ordered VeriSign and any other registry or registrar of the listed domains to transfer them to DISH within 48 hours so that the broadcaster may "fully control and use" them. Additionally, registries and registrars were ordered to restrict any future domain names used by Khalid to provide access to DISH works by disabling them within 48 hours of receiving a complaint from DISH.

"Such domain names shall remain disabled so that the websites and content located at the domain names are inaccessible to the public until further order of this Court, or until DISH provides written notice to the registry or registrar that the domain names shall be reenabled," the order concludes.

The memorandum opinion and order and final judgment can be found here and here (pdf)

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

'US Government Should Protect the Public from Copyright Extremes'
Ernesto Van der Sar, 01 Mar 11:39 AM

re:create logoChanges in power often present opportunities, including in the US where a new President and Congress were recently sworn in.

Last week, we reported how a pro-copyright coalition took this opportunity to ask President Biden for help in their battle against online piracy.

The copyright holders were particularly critical of big tech companies such as Google and Facebook, accusing them of hiding behind the DMCA's safe harbor. That should stop, they argued, calling for stricter copyright policies.

Re:Create Wants a Balanced Copyright Law

Not everyone agrees with this stance. In fact, the Re:Create Coalition, which includes members such as the Consumer Technology Association, the American Library Association, the CCIA, and EFF, is in favor of more 'balanced' copyright policies.

The coalition sent a letter to the 117th Congress last week, warning that copyright laws and regulations have a downside too. When they go too far, it can harm creativity and stifle free speech.

"Attempts to increase the protections provided by U.S. copyright law may serve an important purpose, but in doing so we must remain mindful that a heavy-handed approach will only stifle free speech, creativity and the economy writ large," Re:Create writes.

"The U.S. government should seek the appropriate balance in copyright law to unlock the full potential of all people's innovative and creative spirit," the group adds.

Unlike many copyright industry groups, Re:Create believes that the DMCA is already balanced and working properly. The notice-and-takedown system is seen as an international standard that protects online services while allowing copyright holders to protect their content.

Protecting the Public by Punishing Abuse

However, the coalition sees some developments of concern. For example, companies such as YouTube allow rightsholders to de-monetize or block content that could be fair use. This stifles free speech.

To prevent these types of 'abuse' it should be easier to contest these takedown requests. In addition, there should be penalties for people and companies that abuse the takedown process.

"We recommend that the DMCA's notice and takedown regime largely be left alone, although there is a need to strengthen the penalties for abusive and fraudulent notices, and to make it easier to file counter-notices on non-infringing content," Re:Create writes.

The letter also highlights another DMCA-related concern. In recent years several Internet providers have been sued because they failed to terminate "repeat infringers." As a result, ISPs have implemented stricter termination policies.

Disconnecting Internet Users Isn't Right

This is a problem, Re:Create warns, as Internet access is a fundamental part of people's lives. Cutting Internet access to entire households simply based on copyright infringement accusations goes too far.

"Internet access is a necessity in today's society – being cut off from the internet could mean losing a job or not being able to participate in school fully," Re:Create writes.

"Just because one household member has had multiple allegations of copyright infringement against them, the whole household should not lose internet access. Copyright law should be amended to ensure that no one loses access to the internet based on allegations of copyright infringement."

The letter highlights several other issues that Congress may want to reconsider as well. These include broadening DMCA exceptions that allow people to break DRM. In addition, Re:Create warns that the newly adopted Small Claims Act should become 'opt-in', instead of 'opt-out'.

Progress Without Restrictions

All in all, the letter reminds Congress that copyright law isn't about restrictions. It was originally implemented to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." This means that fewer restrictions can actually prove beneficial.

"Copyright law, by its very nature, needs to focus on how to best allow this progress to occur. Restrictive rules that strengthen gatekeepers to the creative world and prevent new and different types of creativity go against this Constitutional purpose," the coalition writes.

A copy of the letter Re:Create sent to the 117th US Congress is available here (pdf)

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

Top 10 Most Torrented Movies of The Week – 03/01/2021
Ernesto Van der Sar, 28 Feb 11:30 PM

monster hunterThe data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only.

These torrent download statistics are meant to provide further insight into the piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources.

This week we have two new entries in the list. Monster Hunter is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on March 1 are:

Movie Rank Rank last week Movie name IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1 (1) Monster Hunter 5.3 / trailer
2 (…) Tom and Jerry 5.4 / trailer
3 (4) The Little Things 6.3 / trailer
4 (6) Wonder Woman 1984 5.8 / trailer
5 (…) The United States vs. Billie Holiday 6.4 / trailer
6 (2) Judas and the Black Messiah 7.9 / trailer
7 (3) Wrong Turn 5.5 / trailer
8 (7) Tenet 7.7 / trailer
9 (8) Soul 8.2 / trailer
10 (10) I Care A Lot 6.3 / trailer

Note: We also publish an updating archive of all the list of weekly most torrented movies lists.

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: