Thursday, July 29, 2021

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Filmmakers Want WOW! to Block Pirate Sites & Disconnect Repeat Infringers
Ernesto Van der Sar, 29 Jul 06:13 PM

WOW! logoThe "repeat infringer" issue remains a hot topic in US courts after rightsholders filed lawsuits against several ISPs.

These Internet providers are accused of not doing enough to stop copyright infringers on their networks, even after receiving multiple 'copyright infringement' notifications.

The copyright infringement allegations can have real consequences. In 2019, a Virginia jury ordered Internet provider Cox to pay a billion dollars in damages to a group of major record labels. This case is being appealed but at the same time, other ISPs have been dragged to court over similar issues.

Filmmaker Sue WOW!

Most of the early 'repeat infringer' cases were filed by music companies backed by the industry group RIAA. However, in recent weeks some independent movie companies have filed similar lawsuits featuring even more far-reaching demands. This includes a copyright infringement lawsuit against Internet provider Wide Open West, better known as WOW!.

In a complaint filed at a federal court in Colorado, the makers of movies including "After We Collided," "Dallas Buyers Club," "Rambo V: Last Blood," and "London Had Fallen" accuse WOW! of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. The ISP allegedly turned a blind eye to pirating subscribers.

"Defendant failed to terminate the accounts and/or take any meaningful actions against its subscribers in response to the Notices consistent with a reasonably implemented policy for termination of subscribers […] who are repeat infringers," the complaint reads.

No Meaningful Action

The movie companies, represented by attorney Kerry Culpepper, list several examples of account holders for whom WOW! was sent dozens of copyright infringement notices. Despite these alerts, the accounts remained active and continued their piracy activities.

For one IP address, the rightsholders sent over 100 infringement notices, without any meaningful response. That account was eventually terminated earlier this year after the attorney alerted WOW! through a separate letter.

The fact that WOW! advertised high-speed Internet access, combined with the inaction against online piracy, attracts potential copyright infringers to the ISP, the complaint alleges. As such, WOW! should be held liable for the pirating activities on its network.

"Defendant's subscribers are motivated to become subscribers from the knowledge of Defendant's practice of ignoring notices of infringements or failing to take any meaningful action," the movie companies write.

YTS Evidence

There are a few key differences between the music companies' repeat infringers lawsuits and the present one. Most notably, the movie companies cite specific cases where WOW! subscribers used the popular torrent site YTS to download content.

That claim is backed up by an affidavit from the operator of YTS, who signed settlements with several of the movie companies in the past. As part of this deal, the operator agreed to hand over data from the site's user database.

With this lawsuit, the movie companies hope to recoup millions of dollars in piracy damages. However, that's just the beginning.

Site Blocking, Three-Strikes, and Identifying Pirates

What stands out most are the far-reaching and concrete demands for injunctive relief. The complaint specifically requests an order requiring WOW! to terminate subscribers whose accounts were targeted by three unique infringement notices in three days.

In addition to this mandatory three-strikes policy, WOW! should also block all alleged pirate sites that are listed in the USTR's annual overview of notorious markets. This includes the likes of The Pirate Bay, RARBG, and YTS.

Finally, the movie companies request an order which requires the ISP to disclose the identities of account holders whose accounts are flagged for copyright infringement. This would allow the companies to target the alleged pirates directly.

– order Defendant to adopt a policy that provides for the prompt termination of subscribers for which Defendant receives more than three unique notices of infringements of copyright protected Works within 72 hours

– order Defendant to block subscribers from accessing notorious piracy websites of foreign origin that are listed in the annual trade report of Notorious Foreign Markets published by the United States Government on all networks under its control to prevent further pirating of Plaintiffs' Works via the BitTorrent protocol

– order the Defendant to disclose to Plaintiffs the identifications of the subscribers who used and use Defendant's service to infringe Plaintiffs' Works on an ongoing basis after said subscribers are provided notice as required by 47 U.S.C. § 551

Needless to say, these demands go further than those in the repeat infringer cases we've seen thus far. Court-ordered site blocking and Internet disconnections are a novelty in US courts, which will be fiercely contested.

At the time of writing WOW! has yet to respond to the complaint. When it does, we will report on it accordingly.

The present lawsuit is similar to the allegations that many of the same movie outfits lodged against Internet provider Frontier Communications in a bankruptcy proceeding. That case could eventually be referred to a District Court as well, but that decision has yet to be made.

A copy of the movie companies' complaint against WOW!, filed at the US District Court for Colorado, is available here (pdf).

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

UK Police Arrest Man For Operating Pirate IPTV Service & Money Laundering
Andy Maxwell, 29 Jul 11:10 AM

IPTVIn the past, those operating unlicensed torrent sites or streaming services in the UK needed to be aware of breaching civil copyright law, action that could result in a damages award but not a custodial sentence. Times have changed.

These days civil copyright actions have almost completely disappeared and it's now exponentially more likely that offenders will be pursued in criminal cases, ones that have the potential to put them behind bars. That's also the case following a new arrest carried out by police in the UK.

West Mercia Police Make New Arrest

In an announcement Wednesday, West Mercia Police said they had arrested a 56-year-old man in the Shropshire town of Shrewsbury for offenses connected to the operation of an illegal streaming service offering premium TV channels and other copyrighted content.

The action was taken following an investigation carried out in partnership with the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT). The anti-piracy company informs TorrentFreak that since there is a live investigation, the name of the service cannot be named. However, West Mercia Police has provided additional details which put a little more meat on the bones.

Streams Disabled, Message Displayed to Users

It's not clear when the warrant was executed but police say they were able to access and then disrupt the streaming service and disable the illegal streams. They also placed on an on-screen message viewable by users of the service stating that the content they were watching is suspected to be unlawful.

This tactic of warning users directly has been deployed before, including when Norfolk and Suffolk police targeted the Global / Global Entertainment (GE Hosting) IPTV service last summer.

"This operation is the unit's first arrest in relation to online streaming and sends out a strong message that we are homing in on those who knowingly commit or facilitate online copyright infringement," says Sergeant Ian Osborne from West Mercia's Cyber Crime Unit.

"Not only is there an enormous loss to the entertainment industry with this particular operation but it is also unfair that millions of people work hard to afford their subscription-only TV services while others cheat the system."

Items Seized During the Raid (Image: West Mercia Police)IPTV Equipment

Suspect Arrested For Multiple Offenses

While copyright infringement offenses appear to underpin the alleged crimes of the suspect, West Mercia Police say the man was arrested for Money Laundering (s327 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002) and encouraging or assisting in the commission of the offense of obtaining services dishonestly (s44 Serious Crime Act 2007 and s11 Fraud act 2006).

Breaking this down, section 11 of the Fraud Act makes it an offense for any person to obtain services for which payment is required, with the intent to avoid payment. The person must know that the services are made available on the basis that they are chargeable, which is certainly the case in respect of official TV broadcasts or streams.

Section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 relates to those intentionally encouraging or assisting an offense. As pointed out by FACT CEO Kieron Sharp, customers of pirate streaming services also commit an offense. This was also stated in letters previously sent to the customers of GE Hosting who were told by Norfolk and Suffolk Police they were committing an offense under the Fraud Act.

The allegations against the recently arrested suspect indicate that he could be held responsible for assisting his customers to commit a crime.

The money laundering aspect is a natural consequence of generating gain from crime and then possessing, concealing, or otherwise dealing with assets including, but not limited to, cash and other forms of money.

Current information indicates that the suspect hasn't yet been formally charged.

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

Cox Settles Lawsuit Over 'Abusive' DMCA Notice Campaign
Ernesto Van der Sar, 28 Jul 08:13 PM

emailInternet provider Cox Communications has been on the sharp end of several piracy lawsuits in recent years.

In December 2015, a Virginia federal jury held Cox Communications responsible for pirating subscribers, ordering the company to pay music publisher BMG Rights Management $25 million in damages.

This damages figure was reduced in a settlement agreement but, soon after, the Internet provider was hit with a $1 billion jury verdict in a similar case, which is still under appeal.

Cox Updated Its DMCA Policy

These lawsuits were a wake-up call for Cox. To cope with the constant stream of DMCA notices, the company spent millions to improve its takedown systems and processes. In 2017, DMCA notices were separated from other abuse complaints. After that, rightsholders were directed to use a new email address which is also listed a registered agent at the Copyright Office.

Most copyright holders began sending their takedown notices to the new email address, but there was one outlier. Despite repeated alerts and warnings, BMG and its anti-piracy partner Rightscorp continued to use the old abuse@cox.net address.

This presented a problem for the ISP, which didn't want to risk ignoring these notices. That's understandable, as doing so could potentially open the door to millions of dollars in new damages claims. In fact, Cox suspected that this was BMG and Rightscorp's plan all along.

Cox Sues BMG and Rightscorp

In a lawsuit filed earlier this year, the Internet provider described Rightscorp's business plan as "corrupt" as it basically attempts to "extort" Internet subscribers into paying settlements. In a similar vein, the 'refusal' to use the new email address was seen as an attempt to get Cox in trouble again.

"It is obvious that Defendants' tactic is a thinly veiled attempt to exploit the procedures set forth by the [DMCA], with the goal of leveraging their improper notices to attempt to extract windfall judgments for BMG and Rightscorp's other prospective clients. Their approach is improper and unlawful, and should be stopped," Cox wrote.

A few months have passed without an official response in court from either BMG or Rightscorp. Behind the scenes, however, the legal teams of all parties were working hard to resolve the issue without much bloodshed.

Resolving Matters Out of Court

Two weeks ago, the three companies submitted a joint motion asking to extend the reply deadline. According to this filing, Cox, BMG, and Rightscorp were engaged in "active discussions" to resolve the matter outside court.

These discussions were fruitful as Cox decided to drop the lawsuit in its entirety this week.

cox dismiss

The motion to dismiss doesn't explain how the matter was resolved but we can assume that Rightscorp will use the correct email address going forward. Whether Cox was also compensated for the damages it claimed is not clear.

For Cox, it was probably most important to prevent any future copyright infringement claims from BMG. And with the appeal against the $1 billion verdict in another lawsuit still pending, the company has other priorities as well.

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: