Wednesday, June 30, 2021

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Nintendo Fears Relaunch of Pirate Site So Asks for Legal Protection
Ernesto Van der Sar, 30 Jun 09:45 PM

romuniverseNintendo regularly takes legal action against pirate sites and services. The gaming company has sued several sites that offer pirated games, including RomUniverse, which it took to court two years ago.

The download portal, which also offered movies and books, was accused of massive online copyright infringement. Even worse, Nintendo's complaint said that the site also charged users for access to premium features.

RomUniverse Fought Back

The site's operator, Los Angeles resident Matthew Storman, clearly disagreed with these allegations and without an attorney decided to defend himself in court. In his view, the site wasn't breaking any laws so he asked the court to dismiss the case.

Nintendo picked this defense apart and found the court on its side. This meant that Storman had to face the copyright infringement charges, as well as millions of dollars in potential damages.

The RomUniverse site initially remained online but last summer, after discussions with Nintendo's legal team, the operator agreed to shut it down. But that didn't end the case.

$2.1 Million Judgment

Nintendo was pleased to see RomUniverse offline, but the lawsuit continued. The gaming company moved for summary judgment and demanded millions of dollars in damages.

Last month, US District Court Judge Consuelo Marshall ruled on the matter, largely siding with Nintendo. The court granted a $2.1 million summary judgment against the RomUniverse operator, for infringing the game company's copyrights and trademarks.

Nintendo didn't get everything it was after. Judge Marshall denied a permanent injunction against Storman, as Nintendo failed to show that it was suffering irreparable harm. Additionally, the fact that Storman had already shut down the site showed there was no imminent threat of further infringements.

Nintendo Asks Court to Reconsider

New court filings reveal that Nintendo isn't planning to let the permanent injunction go just yet. The company has filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that, under the recently implemented Trademark Modernization Act, there is a 'mandatory' presumption of irreparable harm for trademark infringers.

Perhaps just as crucially, Nintendo is worried that RomUniverse hasn't shut down permanently and could make a comeback in the near future.

In a signed declaration, Nintendo's lawyer William C. Rava says he spoke with Mr. Storman over the phone earlier this month. At the time, RomUniverse's operator didn't rule out a comeback. However, he did offer assurances that this would be without any Nintendo titles.

Nintendo Fears a Comeback

Still, this potential relaunch has the Japanese gaming giant worried and it believes that a permanent injunction preventing such a comeback is warranted.

"Defendant's threat to continue to operate RomUniverse to distribute videogame ROMs, using the same website he used for the past several years to mass-infringe Nintendo's copyright and trademark rights, necessitates the entry of an injunction," Nintendo informs the court.

In addition, the motion highlights that Mr. Storman has already disregarded previous legal obligations. The court previously awarded sanctions that required a monthly $50 payment, but this money has yet to come in.

"This failure to make even the modest $50/month payment, an amount that he proposed and agreed to, demonstrates that Nintendo has no adequate remedy at law for Defendant's past or future infringement and underscores the need for a permanent injunction."

RomUniverse Wants Damages Scrapped

Nintendo's concerns are not the only remaining issue, Mr. Storman himself has also filed a motion for reconsideration.

According to RomUniverse's founder, the court erred in awarding $2.1 million in damages. Mr. Storman contests that Nintendo suffered actual damages and also questions whether game copyrights were registered on time.

Both motions are opposed by the other side, so it is ultimately up to the court to decide who's right and wrong. At the time of writing, however, the RomUniverse website remains offline.

A copy of Nintendo's follow-up to the motion for reconsideration is available here (pdf). We also have a copy of Storman's motion for reconsideration (pdf) and Nintendo's reply (pdf)

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

Comcast Suspends Internet Connection For Downloading Torrents
Andy Maxwell, 30 Jun 11:35 AM

Comcast logoEvery week, Internet service providers in the United States receive copyright infringement notices from rightsholders.

Sent under the framework of the Digitial Millenium Copyright Act, so-called DMCA notices typically identify the copyright holders, the works allegedly infringed, the infringers' IP addresses, plus times and dates of the alleged offenses.

ISPs are required to forward these notices to the allegedly infringing customers so that they can take appropriate action, including stopping any infringement and deleting the content in question. In cases where a single notice has been sent to an infringer, this is usually the end of the matter. However, when the same user receives more than one complaint, further action is required.

Repeat Infringers

Under the DMCA, ISPs are required to implement a policy to deal with frequent copyright infringers. Those policies do not have to be written down, meaning that it is acceptable for an ISP to simply inform subscribers that a policy of terminating offenders in 'appropriate circumstances' exists. Specifics do not have to be made public.

Of course, this creates uncertainty among users. Even when approached directly, ISPs refuse to detail exactly what their processes are, meaning that users simply have to find out as they go along.

In 2020, we revealed how ISP Cox handed down a six-month suspension after receiving multiple copyright complaints. Twelve months later it appears that Comcast is handing out suspensions too but following an altogether less punitive model.

Comcast Sends Out Repeat Infringer Alert

Yesterday, a Comcast subscriber revealed that they had received a special notice from Comcast headed "Action is required" and informing the user that the document is an "alert under our DMCA repeat infringer policy."

"This alert is to let you know that this month, we again received notifications of alleged copyright infringement associated with your Xfinity account. That means your Internet service may have been used repeatedly to copy or share a movie, show, song, game, or other content without any required permission," it reads.

Comcast notes that the customer should have received separate emails or letters from Xfinity which provided specific details of these claims under the heading 'Notice of Action under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)'. These will have contained the specifics of the alleged infringement so with those having been sent, Comcast is taking the next step.

Comcast Suspends Alleged Pirate's Service

Quite how many notices of alleged infringement were previously received against the subscriber's account remains unclear. Comcast advises that it had "repeatedly received notifications" of alleged copyright infringement "over the past several months" and as a result, action must now be taken.

"[Y]our Xfinity Internet service has been suspended. This suspension will last for up to 8 hours or until you call us," the alert reads.

TorrentFreak has contacted the recipient of the alert for additional information, including precisely how many times they had previously received a DMCA notice and whether the temporary suspension caused any hardship. At the time of writing we have yet to receive a response but Comcast indicates that should any additional complaints come in, action against the account will be escalated.

"Your next repeat infringer alert will result in the suspension of your Xfinity Internet service for up to 12 hours. Further notifications may result in your Xfinity Internet account being suspended again or terminated. Your other Xfinity services could be terminated, as well," the company warns.

Comcast Repeat Infringer

Perhaps unsurprisingly, it appears the subscriber received the notices after downloading/sharing content using torrents although the details of which content triggered the alerts is unclear. There doesn't appear to be any suggestion that the notices are inaccurate either, meaning that even more notices and penalties could be on the horizon if action isn't taken.

Are Hours-Long Suspensions Enough?

The DMCA does not dictate what kind of steps should be taken when multiple copyright complaints are filed against an account. At least in theory, ISPs could turn to their terms of service and terminate accounts pretty quickly. However, it appears that most prefer to take a graduated response by providing several opportunities to correct any issues (such as people stopping the sharing of copyrighted content using BitTorrent) before taking more punitive steps.

Up until now, it was assumed that account suspensions might be measured in days or even weeks but this alert from Comcast indicates that a few hours is currently the company's preference. The big question is whether that will prove much of a deterrent. That will obviously ride on when the suspension takes effect and whether the subscriber requires Xfinity's services during that period.

The more important point is the drawing of a line in the sand by Comcast. As the alert clearly lays out, another DMCA notice will result in a longer suspension, which will be placed on record with the other complaints. After that, another DMCA notice could result in account termination, along with the rest of the customer's Xfinity services.

Effectively, this is what the entertainment industries broadly hoped to achieve with their abandoned 'six strikes' regime but with the addition of punitive measures. That project was shut down in 2017 but subsequent developments, including a $1 billion damages award against ISP Cox, means that ISPs are now effectively forced to take action against repeat infringers.

Cox previously handed out a six-month Internet ban to one of its subscribers for being a repeat infringer, something that had the potential to cause chaos in that individual's household. That's something opponents believe should be avoided.

As highlighted by amici curiae briefs in support of Cox's appeal against the $1 billion damages award it incurred for not dealing appropriately with repeat infringers, such terminations have the potential to disrupt everything from distance learning to telework and telemedicine.

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

Tuesday, June 29, 2021

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Court Orders YouTube Rippers to Log and Share Data with Record Labels
Ernesto Van der Sar, 29 Jun 10:10 PM

2convThe major record labels believe that YouTube rippers are the most significant piracy threat on the Internet.

These sites, which can be used for a variety of purposes, are used by some to convert free YouTube videos into MP3s.

FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com Lawsuit

Three years ago a group of prominent music companies took two of the largest YouTube rippers to court. The labels, including Universal, Warner Bros, and Sony, accused FLVTO.biz, 2conv.com and their Russian operator Tofig Kurbanov of facilitating copyright infringement.

While many foreign site operators choose not to fight back, Kurbanov did. With help from a seasoned legal team he filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that US courts don't have jurisdiction over a Russian site operator who conducts his business from another continent.

Initially, the district court agreed with this defense, dismissing the case. However, the record labels successfully appealed and, after Kurbanov's petition at the Supreme Court was denied, the case is now back at a Virginia district court where it proceeds on the merits.

Collecting Evidence

Over recent weeks, both parties have used the discovery process to gather relevant evidence. The music companies requested all sorts of information from Mr. Kurbanov, including download statistics and location data, but soon learned that the sites only keep minimal logs.

The site operator informed the labels that he simply has nothing to share. The requested data do not exist, he replied, noting that it would be 'unduly burdensome' to 'create or produce' logs.

The labels clearly disagreed and noted that Mr. Kurbanov could enable logging on these servers. As such, they went to court, requesting an order that requires the sites to preserve and share data they deem important.

"The problem is that Defendant has configured his server software to turn the logging function off — thus, continually overwriting important data that Plaintiffs explicitly requested in discovery," the labels wrote.

After reviewing the arguments from both sides, US District Court Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan now sides with the music companies. The motion to compel is granted which means that the YouTube rippers must preserve and share server logs.

Identifying User Locations

The order is disappointing news for the operator of the YouTube rippers and may also be a concern for some of the site's users. Looking at the paperwork in detail, however, there is no indication that the labels are planning to go after individual users.

Mr. Kurbanov opposed the request by arguing, among other things, that logging IP-addresses would put user privacy at risk. However, in response, the labels noted that redacting this information is an option.

"Defendant's only purported privacy concern relates to IP addresses; redactions, combined with identification of the user's geographical location, can readily address that concern," they wrote.

The labels specifically request the location of users down to the state level. This will help to identify where most users are coming from, but nothing more.

For all converted files, the labels want to receive "documents concerning each subsequent use, copying, storage, distribution, or other disposition of the audio file, including the date and time of download of the audio file and the geographic location (i.e., state) of the User."

A Selection of the Requests

request for production

In addition, Mr. Kurbanov is required to produce more general statistics such as the most frequently converted music video streams per month and year. The labels likely expect that their copyrighted works are on these lists.

The court order doesn't make clear whether the data will be redacted or not. It simply refers to "specific rulings and instructions" that were discussed during the court hearing.

This isn't the first time that an alleged 'pirate' site has been ordered to keep extensive logs. The same happened to the now-defunct torrent site TorrentSpy.com, which decided to close its doors in the US soon after.

Whether the YouTube rippers have anything planned in response is unknown. TorrentFreak reached out to Mr. Kurbanov's legal team asking for a comment on the ruling but, at the time of writing, we have yet to hear back.

A copy of Judge Buchanan's order is available here (pdf). The record label's request, which includes the requests for production, can be found here (pdf)

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

High Court Grants Default Judgment in Bitcoin.org Copyright Infringement Case
Andy Maxwell, 29 Jun 11:23 AM

bitcoinIt is widely accepted that the person (or persons) who developed bitcoin did so under the name Satoshi Nakamoto. The big question is what real-life identity or identities lie behind this presumed pseudonym.

Over the years, several people have been named in the press as likely candidates, either following investigations, apparent confessions, or a combination of both.

In 2015, Australian computer scientist Craig Wright was named by Wired as the probable inventor of bitcoin but the publication later backtracked, reporting that evidence it reviewed appeared to be fraudulent.

This apparent setback did not deter Wright from continuing to claim that he is indeed Satoshi. In 2019, Wright increased the pressure by using libel laws in both Norway and England in an attempt to silence people who labeled him as a fraud. Wright also registered copyrights in the United States for the bitcoin white paper and bitcoin's original code.

Copyright Infringement Allegations

In January 2021, the operator of Bitcoin.org (who operates under the pseudonym 'Cøbra') reported that lawyers acting for Wright had contacted Bitcoin.org and Bitcoincore.org with allegations of copyright infringement, demanding that they stop distributing the bitcoin white paper from their domains.

Bitcoincore.org complied but Bitcoin.org did not.

"The Bitcoin whitepaper was included in the original Bitcoin project files with the project clearly published under the MIT license by Satoshi Nakamoto," Cøbra wrote.

"We believe there is no doubt we have the legal right to host the Bitcoin whitepaper. Furthermore, Satoshi Nakamoto has a known PGP public key, therefore it is cryptographically possible for someone to verify themselves to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Unfortunately, Craig has been unable to do this."

Cøbra signed off defiantly, insisting that he would not be "silenced or intimidated", but that would not be the end of the matter.

Copyright Infringment Claim in the UK

After Cøbra refused to comply, Wright instructed lawyers at ONTIER LLP to pursue a copyright infringement claim. Proceedings were issued on February 24, 2021 in the High Court and in April, Wright was granted permission to serve the still anonymous Cøbra via email.

After being served on April 26, 2021, Cøbra had until May 18, 2021, to file a defense to the proceedings. After that deadline passed, Wright applied to the High Court for a default judgment. In the Chancery Division yesterday, Judge Hodge QC granted a default judgment against Cøbra.

Default Judgment and Injunction

The remote hearing took place without Cøbra in attendance. As a result, the Court ruled entirely in Wright's favor, handing down an injunction that prohibits the Bitcoin.org operator from making the white paper available for download via their website or by any other means.

In addition, Cøbra was ordered to publish a copy of the High Court's order on Bitcoin.org for six months. The Court also ordered Cøbra to pay Wright's costs (around £35,000 thus far) and ordered an inquiry to establish the level of damages caused by breaches of Wright's copyrights in the UK.

Simon Cohen, Senior Associate at ONTER LLP, says that the judgment represents another step forward for Wright in his mission to assert his position as author of the bitcoin white paper.

"This is an important development in Dr Wright's quest to obtain judicial vindication of his copyright in his White Paper. Although he has secured victory today by default because no defense was forthcoming, it is notable that the English court has nevertheless injuncted 'Cøbra' from making the White Paper accessible in the UK," Cohen says.

"Dr Wright does not wish to restrict access to his White Paper. However, he does not agree that it should be used by supporters and developers of alternative assets, such as Bitcoin Core, to promote or otherwise misrepresent those assets as being Bitcoin given that they do not support or align with the vision for Bitcoin as he set out in his White Paper."

Response from Cøbra

At the time of writing the white paper is still being made available from Bitcoin.org and there is no copy of the High Court order. However, Cøbra did take to Twitter to criticize Wright and complain about the legal system.

In an apparent offer to cover Wright's legal costs, Cøbra offered to pay in bitcoin to block 9, which was mined by Satoshi Nakamoto in January 2009. If Wright is indeed Satoshi, he would directly receive the funds, Cøbra appears to suggest.

Whether Cøbra will comply with the High Court's instructions is currently unknown. Earlier this week in a post to Twitter, Cøbra said that non-compliance would "probably" mean that ISPs in the UK would be ordered to "block parts or all of bitcoin.org for copyright infringement."

Given the overwhelming non-infringing nature of Bitcoin.org that currently seems unlikely but Wright is clearly a man on a mission, one that isn't afraid to spend large volumes of cash to achieve his goals.

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company