Tuesday, July 27, 2021

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

YouTube Rippers Refuse to Log Data and Back Out of U.S. Piracy Lawsuit
Ernesto Van der Sar, 27 Jul 08:12 PM

stopThree 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 was sent back to the Virginia district court to proceed on the merits.

Collecting Evidence

Over the past weeks, both sides had the chance to conduct discovery and collect further evidence to back up their claims. The record labels, for example, asked the stream-rippers to share what files users rip and download, which source sites they use, and where these users are located.

The Russian operator wasn't able to share this data though. He set up his sites with privacy in mind and none of the requested data were logged. As such, there was nothing to hand over.

The record labels didn't take no for an answer and asked the court to compel Mr. Kurbanov to start logging this data. This request was approved by the magistrate judge and, despite fierce protest from the site owner, District Court Judge Claude Hilton affirmed the order last week.

Kurbanov Drops Out

This ruling was another setback for the operator of the stream-rippers who still believes that he shouldn't be sued in the US. According to a new filing from his legal team, the data logging order appears to be the straw that broke the camel's back.

A few days after the court affirmed the data logging order, Mr. Kurbanov's lawyers submitted a motion to withdraw as counsel. They inform the court that, despite the formal order, their (former) client doesn't plan to provide all data the record labels asked for.

As it turns out, Mr. Kurbanov no longer intends to participate in the lawsuit at all, which means that his lawyers can no longer represent him.

"Despite the efforts of Counsel for Defendant, Mr. Kurbanov has made clear that he does not intend to cooperate further with the present litigation or counsel's attempts to mount an effective defense on his behalf.

"Mr. Kurbanov has indicated that he will not provide Counsel for Defendant with any additional discovery and will not sit for his previously-noticed deposition," the lawyers add.

Lawyers Still Had Faith

Having lost faith in the process, the site operator has simply decided to drop out and move on, ignoring the lawsuit and moving ahead. This decision comes as a surprise after a legal battle that has lasted three years already.

Evan Fray-Witzer, one of the defense team lawyers, tells TorrentFreak that they are disappointed that their work ends here. They were confident that their client had a strong case and believe that YouTube-ripping tools have legitimate uses.

"We're obviously disappointed that this is how things are ending: we've always believed that the case was a strong one on the merits and that websites like Mr. Kurbanov's simply provide a legitimate tool with numerous non-infringing uses.

"We also continue to believe – as many do – that the youtube-dl software does not circumvent technological measures in any meaningful way," Fray-Witzer adds.

While the data logging order may have been the final straw, the jurisdiction issue is still a sore spot as well. The site operator doesn't believe a U.S. court can order him to do anything and his legal team reiterates that this issue should have been taken on by the Supreme Court.

"At the end of the day, though, Mr. Kurbanov is an individual who lives in Russia, who has operated the websites exclusively from Russia, and who has had almost no contact with the United States whatsoever. The whole issue of personal jurisdiction in such a context continues to cry out for guidance from the Supreme Court," Fray-Witzer tells us.

Going Forward

With Mr. Kurbanov giving up his defense, it is very likely that the record labels will end up winning the lawsuit through a default judgment. This could result in millions of dollars in piracy damages.

It seems unlikely that the site operator will pay anything if it goes that far. However, it wouldn't be a surprise if the labels also went after his assets indirectly, including the .com and .biz domain names, which are tied to US-based registries.

A copy of the memorandum in support of the motion to withdraw as counsel, submitted by attorneys Val Gurvits, Matthew Shayefar, Evan FrayWitzer, and Jeffrey Geiger, is available here (pdf)

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

Upload Filters: 23 EU Member States Face Legal Action Over Copyright Law Delays
Andy Maxwell, 27 Jul 11:05 AM

EU CopyrightBack in 2016, the European Commission announced plans to amend EU copyright law to better meet emerging challenges on the Internet.

One of the most controversial elements of the new Copyright Directive was Article 13 (now Article 17). This would require many online services such as YouTube to either legally license content from copyright holders or put filtering mechanisms in place to ensure disputed content is taken down not re-uploaded by users.

The new Copyright Directive passed in March 2019, meaning that EU Member States are required to write the amendments into national law. The EU Commission launched a consultation last summer but it now appears that EU countries are struggling to meet their obligations.

23 Member States Failed To Meet June 2021 Deadline

Considering its standing and commitment to the bloc, it was no surprise to see Germany adopt new legislation including Article 17 in advance of the June 7 deadline set by the EU Commission.

Germany's implementation was cautiously praised due to measures designed to prevent automatic blocking of minor uses of copyrighted works, including when copyright works are used in combination with other content. However, almost two dozen other countries are now facing criticism from the European Commission.

In an announcement yesterday, the Commission said it had launched an official infringement process against 23 countries for missing the June deadline to comply with EU rules on copyright.

"The Commission has requested Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Finland, France, Croatia, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovenia and Slovakia to communicate information about how the rules included in the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (Directive 2019/790/EU) are being enacted into their national law," the Commission's statement reads.

"As the Member States above have not communicated national transposition measures or have done it only partially, the Commission decided today to open infringement procedures by sending letters of formal notice."

Infringement Procedures Could Lead to Legal Action

The EU's infringement procedures are clearly laid out and include measures to deal with EU countries that fail to communicate measure that fully transpose the provisions of directives. The process works as follows:

Since the 23 countries have already missed the deadline, the Commission has now taken the first step of sending formal notices requesting information on why that happened. Member States have two months to respond but if the responses received by the Commission are considered unsatisfactory, the Commission may send something called a 'reasoned opinion'.

While gentle in tone, this is a formal statement that the country is in breach of EU law and needs to comply within a specified period, usually two months. If the country fails to comply within this period, the Commission has the option to take the matter to the EU Court of Justice, where it could request the imposition of penalties.

In any event, EU countries will be required to comply with any decision of the EU's highest court or risk being referred back by the Commission for further action.

Earlier this month a legal challenge by Poland against Article 17 was met with an opinion from EU Advocate General Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe, who declared that its provisions are compatible with freedom of expression under certain conditions, including when exemptions such as quotation, criticism, review and parody are respected.

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: