 |  While the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment has built a reputation for shutting down pirate IPTV services by various means, US broadcaster DISH is more prolific when it comes to actual lawsuits.
Over the years DISH has filed large numbers of civil lawsuits, some based on copyright law and others the Federal Communications Act. Some of these complaints are met by defendants who wish to engage in court but there are others that are completely one-sided affairs, with DISH doing all the legal legwork and getting very little in response. The case in question is an excellent example of the latter. DISH Files Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against IPTV Provider Initially filed in August 2020, the complaint targeted five 'doe' defendants, together doing business as Universe IPTV and Universe TV. The complaint alleged that the service's business was carried out via several domains, including but not limited to World-Universeiptv.com and Uni-Update.com. According to DISH, the pirate provider had not obtained a license to transmit any of DISH's 400 channels in the United States, neither did it have permission to distribute copyrighted works for shows for which the company owns the copyrights. The Universe service transmitted and distributed DISH content regardless, utilizing a network of resellers to sell illicit subscriptions via Instagram and Facebook, in breach of DISH's rights. DISH went to some lengths to try and close Universe down including sending cease-and-desist letters directly to the platform and more than a dozen to CDN networks associated with the service. This proved fruitless, however, since Universe simply shifted to new locations and different providers. DISH Identifies Universe IPTV Operators In December 2020, DISH's first amended complaint named three people as the alleged operators of Universe IPTV – Mohamed Omar, Hossam Abd Elghany, and Moustafa Maatouk. Together they were accused of direct and contributory copyright infringement. DISH also claimed to have identified their locations – United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Germany respectively. The big question was whether DISH would be able to do anything to make the men participate in the lawsuit. The answer to that question was ultimately negative. Despite using established legal processes in all three countries, by April 2021 DISH was unable to confirm to the court that the defendants had been directly served. So, in August 2021, DISH filed motions for default judgment against all three after serving the defendants via third parties including VeriSign, Donuts, and other service providers previously utilized by the platform. The court considered this to be acceptable to advance DISH's claim for a default judgment. Court Orders Universe IPTV Operators to Pay DISH $7m+ In a judgment handed down late last week, United States District Judge Sim Lake found that Universe IPTV had transmitted DISH's protected channels (and the copyrighted works that aired on those channels) to users of the Universe service in the United States. By doing so, the defendants directly infringed DISH's exclusive rights to distribute and publicly perform those works and, as a result, they are liable for direct copyright infringement. In addition, the defendants also induced and materially contributed to the infringement of DISH's rights by providing Universe IPTV's users with access to DISH content, despite having the ability to prevent such access. "Defendants are contributorily liable for copyright infringement because they served as the intermediary between third parties who directly infringe DISH's exclusive distribution and public performance rights and users of the Universe Service, who became a necessary component of the infringement – the audience," the judgment reads. As a result, the Judge found the Universe defendants liable for inducing and materially contributing to copyright infringement, noting that the breaches were both malicious and willful. Taking the 47 copyrighted works mentioned in the complaint, the Judge awarded DISH $150,000 in damages for each of them, to a total of $7,050,000, with the defendants held jointly and severally liable. Whether DISH will ever see a penny of this amount is in question but the Judge also handed down a broad injunction in an effort to hinder the defendants' business moving forward. Broad Injunction Against Universe IPTV In addition to some broad measures designed to prevent Universe from doing business as before, including transmitting the DISH channels in the United States and/or marketing/selling subscriptions there, the injunction prevents non-party service providers from engaging in infringing activities with the Universe defendants in the future. Website and domain hosting companies, proxy services, CDN providers, advertisers, social media services and email providers cannot provide services to support any infringing service offered by the defendants. In addition, Belize-based ISP Squitter Networks must disable a range of IP addresses used by Universe and any future ISPs served with the order must do the same, if their network is being used by Universe to breach DISH's rights. Finally, domain companies including VeriSign and Donuts are required to disable a large number of domains related to the Universe service and transfer them to DISH so that the broadcaster can fully control and use them. The $7m default judgment can be found here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. |  Over the past two decades, online piracy has proven a massive challenge for the entertainment industries.
It's a global issue that's hard to contain, but various anti-piracy group are doing their best to fight back. The Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) has been at the forefront of this battle. The coalition is led by the Motion Picture Association (MPA) which represents the major Hollywood studios and Netflix. Piracy = Single Greatest Threat In a speech at CineEurope in Barcelona this week, MPA CEO and Chairman Charles Rivkin told the audience that piracy remains a massive threat to the film industry. "[Piracy] is the single greatest threat to the global audiovisual community. It harms local and foreign films and businesses. It threatens jobs. It undermines investment. It reduces tax contributions to governments. And it stifles the very creativity that is the lifeblood of our industry," Rivkin said. While the piracy threat hasn't gone away over the past decade, rightsholders have significantly stepped up their efforts to combat the problem. The ACE coalition played an important part in this. Anti-Piracy Successes In recent years ACE has had a hand in several high-profile anti-piracy initiatives throughout the world, and Rivkin noted that law enforcement in Europe has been a crucial partner. "We have enjoyed great success everywhere," Rivkin said, recalling several success stories, including the shutdown of the piracy app Mobdro, in which the Spanish police played a central role. Spanish law enforcement has also been instrumental in dismantling several illegal IPTV services. The MPA's boss said that he will personally thank the police for their efforts later this week. "I am going to Madrid to meet with the leadership of the Spanish National Police to thank them for their outstanding cooperation and teamwork in this critical effort," Rivkin added. Site Blocking Works There are other 'helpful' developments in Europe as well, from a rightsholder's perspective. This includes pirate site blocking. Countries including Spain, Italy, France, Denmark, Greece, and the Netherlands all have measures in place to prevent access to infringing sites. "Europe also leads the world in blocking illegal websites – which makes an enormous difference," Rivkin told the audience. It is no secret that the MPA is also pushing for similar powers in the United States but, thus far, not much progress was made on that front. Tackling Camcording Piracy CineEurope is a trade show for the cinema industry. According to Rivkin, movie theaters can and have helped to combat online piracy as well by tracking down and reporting people who illegally 'camcord' films. These anti-camcording measures help to decrease piracy and some successes were booked recently, also in Spain. "Our work together, along with the Spanish National Police, resulted in the successful arrest of individuals in Madrid and Pamplona who were illegally filming premieres and uploading them to specialized, illegal sites," Rivkin noted. MPA's boss is positive about the anti-piracy cooperation in Europe. Just recently, this led to the shutdown of Iconic Streams and Filelinked in Germany. These enforcement actions ultimately benefit theater owners as well. There is little doubt that these anti-piracy sentiments will be broadly shared among the CineEurope audience. After all, piracy is a threat for everyone involved. A Threat From Within? Most recently, however, there has been some uproar within the movie industry as well. Many theater owners are not happy that some movies premiere on streaming services and at the box office simultaneously. Rivkin acknowledged the concerns and the daunting and uncertain challenges ahead while adding that he can't predict the future. However, he believes that the movie theater experience can't easily be replaced. "As I have said before, we are living in the golden age of content – for all of us to enjoy – wherever we choose to find it. But there is no substitute for going to the movies." These comments apply to the potential competition between legal streaming and the box office, but perhaps that can be expanded to piracy as well. If legal streaming is no replacement for the movie theatre experience, we doubt that piracy is. But that's another discussion. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. |  YTS.mx is one one of the most-used torrent sites on the internet, serving millions of visitors every day.
The site can be used without registering an account. However, those who sign up get some extra features, such as an option to bookmark titles. These added benefits can be handy but registering an account with a pirate site is not without risk. Early last year the operators of YTS signed a settlement agreement with several movies studios, which put many of the site's users at risk. YTS User Database The settlement ensured that YTS could continue to operate. However, the operator agreed to share details from the YTS userbase, including IP-addresses, email addresses, and download histories. This provided the movie companies with evidence for follow-up lawsuits against these users. The film companies, including the makers of "London Has Fallen", "Rambo V", and "Dallas Buyers Club", didn't stop there. Over the past months, they went after VPN providers and hosting companies as well. These third-party services are directly or indirectly liable for piracy, the filmmakers argue, because their networks and infrastructure are used by people to pirate movies. And despite sending many copyright infringement notices, these services failed to take meaningful action in response. Movie Companies Sue Datacamp A few days ago the movie companies filed a new lawsuit at a federal court in Virginia, accusing UK-based company Datacamp Limited of copyright infringement. Datacamp operated under the CDN77 and DataPacket brands, and reportedly offers its services to several VPN providers. The complaint lists ten unnamed VPN services and "Doe" defendants and the movie companies hope to find out their names through this lawsuit. "DOE 1-10 promote their VPN service as a tool that can be used to pirate copyright protected content without getting caught," the complaint reads, adding that the VPNs "partner with notorious movie piracy websites to promote their VPN service as an essential tool for movie piracy." Meanwhile, Datacamp is accused of contributory copyright infringement, as it failed to terminate the accounts of these VPN services after repeated warnings. These allegations are similar to the ones we have seen in cases against Leaseweb, Sharktech, and other hosting companies. YTS Account with "Hacked' Email The YTS database also shows up as evidence again. And in this case, that leads to a noteworthy finding we haven't seen before. The movie companies previously sued Indiana resident Mr. Byranski after they found his email address in the YTS user database. The YTS database linked this user to an IP-address that's registered to Datacamp, presumably through one of the company's VPN customers. Mr. Byranski, however, denied any wrongdoing and testified that he didn't use a VPN service, nor did he download the pirated movies. Apparently, Mr. Byranski's email address was "hacked" around the same time and $12,000 was stolen from his PayPal account. This leads the movie studios to suggest that the hacker could have used the same email to sign up with YTS too. "Some of these YTS users [use] the VPN service of DataCamp's subscribers to unlawfully access 'hack' into the accounts of third parties, use their email addresses to register for an account with the YTS website and pirate movies, and unlawfully access bank accounts of the third parties," the complaint reads. No Hacking Skills Needed In reality, there are no hacking skills required to use a third-party email address to sign up with YTS. Everyone can use a random email to register an account, as the YTS website doesn't require users to verify their addresses. The movie companies eventually dismissed their copyright infringement claims against Mr. Byranski, but not before securing a formal declaration that puts pressure on Datacamp. Similar to the film companies, Mr. Byranski stated that it would have been better if Datacamp had taken action after receiving multiple copyright infringement notices. "I wish Datacamp Limited had taken action against the subscriber at this IP address in response to those notices so that possibly the damages I have suffered from this hacking, including being accused of copyright infringement could have been prevented," the declaration reads. Mr. Byranski received a full refund from Paypal and the copyright infringement claims were dropped as well. Instead, the filmmakers now use his declaration as ammunition in the Datacamp lawsuit. Damages, Blocking, and More Datacamp has yet to respond to the allegations. The company stands accused of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, among other things, and faces over a million dollars in potential damages. Similar to the other lawsuits against VPN services and hosting providers, the film companies also ask for far-reaching measures in the form of an injunction. Among other things, they ask the court to issue an order requiring the hosting company to block ports 6881-6889, which are commonly used for BitTorrent traffic. In addition, the company should block its customers from accessing pirate sites such as YTS, The Pirate Bay, Rarbg, and 1337x. — A copy of the complaint the film companies filed against Datacamp Limited at the Eastern District of Virginia is available here (pdf). From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. |  Early 2021 a group of programmers and Grand Theft Auto enthusiasts released 're3' and 'reVC', a pair of reverse engineered releases of GTA 3 and Vice City.
The releases allowed fans of these much-loved titles to enjoy them with significant enhancements but the newly polished games weren't well-received by Take-Two and Rockstar Games. They responded by filing a DMCA takedown notice with Gihub where the code was stored, demanding the removal of the 're3' and 'reVC' repositories. Github fulfilled its requirements under the law by taking them both down but believing they could continue their work under the doctrine of fair use, the team behind 're3' and 'reVC' filed a DMCA counter-notice to have them restored. Copyright Infringment Lawsuit Take-Two could've prevented this from happening by quickly filing a lawsuit. Instead, after biding its time, the company eventually responded in early September with a full-blown copyright complaint targeting Angelo Papenhoff (aap), Theo Morra, Eray Orçunus, and Adrian Graber, plus Doe 1 'Ash R / Ash/735' and nine other unnamed Does. The complaint alleges that the defendants committed willful copyright infringement by "maliciously copying, adapting and distributing its source code and other content", making them liable for $150,000 in damages for each infringed work. Take-Two also claims that three of the defendants (Orçunus, Morra, and Graber) sent DMCA counter-notices in bad faith. Take-Two's Lawyers Send New DMCA Notice Just before the weekend, a new entry in Github's DMCA repository revealed the existence of a letter sent to Github from Take-Two's legal team. Dated September 9, 2021 (a week after the copyright lawsuit was filed) it informs Github that legal action is underway and it has come to the company's attention that the contentious content (and numerous 'fork' repositories) continue to be made available on Github's website. "We request that Github take expeditious action to remove or disable access to the materials [in the attached exhibit], together with any other instances of the same materials available within the same primary 'GTAmodding/re3' fork network (e.g. in 'private' or newly-created repositories)," it reads.  In common with the first DMCA notice, Github has responded by taking the project's repositories down. Given that the defendants in the case already stand accused of previously sending "bad faith" counter-notices, it seems unlikely that they will follow up with another set of similar responses that will soon be under the scrutiny of the court. Take-Two also follows up with a line that is becoming more and more popular in copyright infringement matters, one that references so-called 'repeat infringers'. "Furthermore, it is requested that Github take appropriate measures to prevent further infringement by the parties responsible, including pursuant to any 'repeat infringer' policies maintained by Github." This means that if any of the contentious content is reposted to Github, Take-Two would like the code repository to implement its own 'repeat infringer' process. It states that "in appropriate circumstances and in its sole discretion, [Github will] disable and terminate the accounts of users who may infringe upon the copyrights or other intellectual property rights of GitHub or others." The letter also provides a laundry list of repository forks that, on the basis they are also infringing, should be removed. While Github appears to have complied in many cases, there are two notable exceptions. After being targeted by earlier DMCA takedowns, Github users 'td512' and 'erorcun' filed DMCA counter-notices to have their repositories restored. The former previously informed TorrentFreak that he believed Take-Two's infringement claims to be incorrect. At the time of writing, both repos are still online. Latest Developments in the Take-Two Lawsuit According to court filings, Papenhoff and Graber reside in Germany, Orçunus in Turkey, and Morra in New Zealand. After Take-Two filed its lawsuit, the gaming company filed a request with the court to serve Morra, Graber and Orçunus by alternative means, specifically Orçunus by post and email, and Defendants Graber and Morra by post. Take-Two argued that this was appropriate because in their DMCA counter-notices, all of the defendants agreed to accept service by providing their postal and email addresses where they could be served outside of the United States. Days later, Judge Thomas S. Hixson granted the motion and thus far it appears that Orçunus and Graber have been served. TorrentFreak has requested comment from Github regarding the processes and subsequent decision to remove the repositories listed in Github's letter. The Take-Two legal letter to Github can be found here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. |  The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only.
These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into the piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources. This week we have three new entries in the list. "Free Guy" is the most downloaded title. The most torrented movies for the week ending on October 4 are: 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. |  The unauthorized copying and distribution of copyrighted content is a multi-billion dollar puzzle that entertainment industry companies are desperate to solve.
A lot of effort is going into blocking pirate sites and, occasionally, the operators of these services are taken to court. The third enforcement option is to go after the people who actually pirate the content. Tracking down these sources isn't always straightforward but there are a few commercial tools that can help. One of these anti-piracy solutions is the NexGuard watermarking solution from the content security outfit NAGRA. This can be used by a variety of streaming platforms, including Pay-TV services and regular broadcasters. Catching Pirates With Watermarks NexGuard is used for Oscars screeners and AMC Networks also implemented the technology to protect its content. This week, NAGRA announced that the Italian broadcaster RAI has joined the platform as well. RAI is the first free-to-air service to use the watermarking system to track down pirates. "Our watermarking-based anti-piracy solutions are essential for RAI to effectively monitor copyright infringements and secure the value of the content distributed over OTT/AVOD," NAGRA's Thierry Legrand says, commenting on the news. Watermarking is part of NAGRA's broader anti-piracy suite which also includes legal services. The company has plenty of experience on this front. It has helped law enforcement authorities to shut down pirate IPTV services and, together with Dish, has filed several lawsuits as well. From NAGRA's website
 Watermarking has been around for decades and some online pirates have been quite successful at circumventing these types of roadblocks. However, NAGRA informs TorrentFreak that their solution is quite effective and approved by Hollywood. Success Stories The technology has already helped the Academy Awards to prevent Oscar screeners from leaking. And if there are leaks, the audio and video watermarks can help to trace these back to the source. "We have many success stories showcasing how NAGRA's NexGuard forensic watermarking has held online pirates accountable," a NAGRA spokesperson says, adding that the company can't provide more details without permission from its customers. "When a leak is detected, the trail to find the perpetrator is immediately activated. It allows intelligence to be created that can assemble a view of how and where pirates are sourcing content and the types of devices they are using," NAGRA adds. In addition to holding pirates accountable, watermarks can also serve as a deterrent. While hardcore pirates aren't easily deterred, these tracking options could scare off more casual infringers. According to NAGRA, this is just the beginning of what is possible in protecting copyrighted content. The company is convinced that these and other technological measures will help rightsholders to successfully combat piracy. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. |  Since around 2017, Danish law firm Njord Law has worked with movie companies to extract cash settlements from alleged pirates.
The system follows a familiar pattern – use an anti-piracy monitoring firm to collect IP addresses in BitTorrent swarms, obtain court orders compelling ISPs to hand over the personal details behind those IP addresses, and send letters asking for cash to make potential lawsuits go away. In Denmark, thousands of Internet users have paid settlements to the law firm equivalent to around $1,200 each but with a rising number of lawsuits being kicked out of court when they dared to venture there, this attracted the attention of the authorities. Following an investigation that began in 2020, in January it was revealed that the State Prosecutor for Serious Economic Crime (SØIK) had charged Njord Law and partner lawyer Jeppe Brogaard Clausen with serious fraud offenses in connection with their settlement work. State Prosecutor Finds No Wrongdoing All along Njord Law has insisted that its work complied with the law and it now transpires that the authorities agree. As first reported by Danish publication Berlingske, SØIK has now dropped the case having found no wrongdoing at the firm. "In 2020, SØIK reacted to a suspicion of one or more criminal acts in connection with a number of compensation cases conducted by a law firm," a SØIK statement reads. "The suspicion has led us to investigate the case thoroughly, and we have also had the opportunity to include the latest decisions from the European Court of Justice and the High Courts. On that basis, it is our assessment that nothing illegal has taken place, and therefore we have now closed the case." The decision was welcomed by Njord Law, with managing partner Lars Lokdam noting that they expected this outcome. "We have always assumed that the charge would be dropped at some point, and I am very happy and relieved that SØIK has now dropped the charge so that we can move forward, and that it is justified on the grounds that the charge was unfounded," Lokdam told Berlingske. That may not give the copyright trolls freedom to continue their business unhindered, however. Danish Consumer Ombudsman Gets Involved In response to reports that people may have settled with Njord and its partners when they were not required to, the Danish Consumer Ombudsman is now encouraging those targeted to see if they are entitled to compensation. "We are currently investigating whether to step into the file-sharing matter. We have not yet decided whether Njord's clients have done anything illegal, but we are conducting an investigation now," says Jeppe Due Hunsdahl. News of the consumer group's involvement came before SØIK dropped the criminal case but the initiative appears to be going ahead anyway. In the meantime, Professor of Law Frederik Waage from the University of Southern Denmark is calling for the government to set up a committee to look at the complexities of this type of litigation in order to provide guidance on how infringements should be handled in the future. "Njord is no longer charged in a possible criminal case, but that does not mean an acquittal for the methods used by the law firm in this lawsuit. Irrespective of the fact that an indictment has been filed, the company has been in a procedural gray area for a number of years, and the waiver of the indictment hopefully does not mean that in the future we will see dubious pirate letters sent out to thousands again," he says. "Even if Njord had to abandon their dubious business model, there is always a risk that another law firm will start subscribing to the pirate letter concept," he continues. "That is why I believe that there must be a commission that can investigate what rights innocent citizens have in this area based on EU law and Danish civil procedural rules. The Commission should also be able to recommend legislative changes in this area, insofar as the current procedural rules do not apply." Issue Will Be Raised With Government Ministers Peter Skaarup, legal spokesman for the Danish People's Party, says he is interested in Waage's proposal and is now promising to raise the matter with the government. "I agree that from a political point of view, we must look at whether this is the type of case that the courts must prioritize, or whether the cases can be resolved in an efficient and uniform manner. That is why I am now raising the case in the Legal Affairs Committee with Minister of Justice Nick Hækkerup," Skaarup says. Berlingske obtained a statement from Hækkerup who says that he does not wish to comment on live cases. However, he encourages those who feel they have been wronged to contact the appropriate legal authority. "It should be noted that I can not and will not comment on pending cases before the courts for the sake of the independence of the courts. I would like to encourage citizens who feel that they have been treated unfairly by a lawyer to complain to the Bar Council, which is an independent complaints board that deals with cases concerning, among other things, good legal practice," he concludes. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. |  In April 2020, companies owned by Columbia, Amazon, Disney, Paramount, Warner, and Universal (all members of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment) filed a lawsuit in the US against the operators of Nitro TV.
The complaint alleged that operator Alejandro "Alex" Galindo engaged in "massive and blatant infringement" of the plaintiffs' copyrighted works. These included movie and TV show hits including The Office, Spider-Man: Homecoming, Toy Story 3, Star Trek Beyond, and Joker. In May 2020 the studios obtained an injunction to shut Nitro down but as the case progressed, Galindo was accused of destroying evidence in an effort to hinder the plaintiffs. The lawsuit later expanded to name other defendants including Galindo's wife, Anna Galindo, and popular YouTuber 'Touchtone', who allegedly received $500,000 to promote and market Nitro TV. Issues Over Destruction of Evidence In response to the studios' lawsuit, Alejandro Galindo asserted innocent copyright infringement and as his lawyer later explained, it was believed that there was no need for his client to plead the Fifth Amendment but during the discovery process, he did just that, to the displeasure of the plaintiffs. According to Galindo, research on the MPA's Jan Van Voorn (who is involved in the case) revealed that he "vigorously advocates" for criminal penalties for IPTV operators. "[I]t became clear that Plaintiffs were looking at not only obtaining a judgment, but that they were accusing Defendant of a crime of destroying evidence. This theme has persisted through most of this litigation since," a summer filing from the defense reads. Galindo's team cited a number of instances where the MPA indicated that criminal prosecutions were extremely important to them so, including aggressively lobbying in favor of the Covid-19 relief bill, which made streaming copyrighted content a felony subject to 10 years in prison. As a result, Galindo asserted his right not to self-incriminate, an act that his lawyer claims is not a discovery abuse worthy of sanctions. Plaintiffs Refuse to Rule Out Criminal Prosecution Galindo's lawyer says that in the spirit of cooperating with discovery in good faith, counsel sought reassurances from the plaintiffs that no criminal referrals would be made. While it was confirmed that no referral had been made, the studios would not commit to not filing one in the future. "For these reasons, it is not difficult to see the writing on the wall. The MPAA is looking for another conviction and they want Mr. Galindo to incriminate himself in every way possible, literally teeing up a potential case against him if they can find it," Galindo's lawyer informed the court. On this basis, Galindo should not be subjected to monetary sanctions for his discovery strategy, his team says. Studios Vigorously Disagree Unsurprisingly, the plaintiffs took an altogether different stance. "According to Defendant, he should be permitted to withhold all records of Nitro TV's multimillion dollar operation in violation of this Court's Order and destroy evidence, yet still be able to assert that his infringement was 'innocent' and he did not infringe the works alleged in the [second amended complaint] through his operation of Nitro TV," they informed the court. The studios said that the Fifth Amendment does not apply here and by engaging in massive copyright infringement, Galindo was always at risk of criminal prosecution. "Defendants' after-the-fact, conspiracy-driven excuses cannot change this fundamental fact. Neither can his purported belief that he could convince a trier of fact that his infringement was 'innocent' — notably, a position he asserted after he had already engaged in extensive email destruction and while (falsely) claiming no Nitro TV documents existed," they added. "In short, Defendant's explanations do not add up; his assertion of the Fifth Amendment is simply a tactic for him to avoid his discovery obligations. The Court should not condone this conduct." Due to the lack of discovery cooperation and the spoilation of evidence, the plaintiffs said they should be awarded a default judgment. In the absence of that, the studios demanded imaging of electronic devices in Galindo's possession. Plaintiffs Demand Substantial Fees and Costs In a follow-up filing, the plaintiffs filed an application for costs in connection with their motion for sanctions, noting that Galindo failed to abide by his discovery obligations, spoliated evidence, and violated the court's order to provide documents and information. They noted that if it wasn't for Galinddo's conduct, extra costs could've been avoided. In the event, the filing of the motion for sanctions cost the plaintiffs in excess of $93,000, an amount they asked the court to award against Galindo. The details of what happened in the interim period aren't clear since documents have been filed with the court under seal. However, this week the docket revealed an objection from the defense relating to another matter. Galindo Asks Court to Dismiss Lawsuit Martha Galindo (Alejandro Galindo's mother), together with other defendants, stands accused of playing a key role in Nitro TV's finances, including the processing of "millions of dollars" through payment processors and bank accounts. According to the defense, the plaintiffs now want extra time to serve her. This would mean yet another delay in the case constituting an unreasonable failure to prosecute the action, they say. Galindo's lawyer points out that the original complaint was filed more than 17 months ago and since then there has been "little activity" other than discovery against Alejandro, one settlement mediation, the serving of multiple subpoenas, and a motion to compel evidence. On this basis, a further delay would be unjustified. "Plaintiff has had multiple attorneys working on this case for over 17 months. It seems the whole purpose has now become to drag on this case, respectfully," the filing reads. "Plaintiff, although being a top law firm in the country, with multiple attorneys billing on the case…they have not provided any valid reasons for their failure to serve Defendant Martha Galindo within a reasonable amount of time. Now, they want to extend the case even further to accomplish this many months later. "It appears objectively obvious, that there is no real effort to prosecute this case within the parameters of what should be expected in [a] case that has had had very little opposition and assertions of the 5th amendment." Alejandro Galindo apparently agreed to withdraw his answer and accept a default judgment but that has not been accepted by the studios. The defense says that considering all of the above, the court should dismiss the case. "Plaintiff has an unlimited budget and supply of legal team members and is not faithfully prosecuting this action, and instead seeks to unreasaonably extend and delay the case. The Court should dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice and deny the motion to extend time to serve summons," Galindo's lawyer concludes. Supporting documents can be found here 1,2,3,4, pdf From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. |  This week the "No Time to Die" premiered in movie theaters around the world.
A few countries have to wait a bit longer for the latest Bond movie. These include the US, Russia, and France which have a week delay. In Australia, Bond fans will have to be even more patient for the planned mid-November premiere. This staggered release schedule isn't uncommon. However, in this case, it leads to the unfortunate situation that pirated copies of the film are already widely available online before people can see them legally. Pirates Leak "No Time to Die" Over the past few hours, several copies of "No Time to Die" started to circulate. The leaks appear to be from at least two distinct sources, which were recorded in movie theaters. One comes with Dutch subtitles and the other one is dubbed in Hindi. What both releases have in common is that the video quality is relatively low. Not just that, they are also filled with advertisements from gambling outfits such as 1XBET and Slotlights, which are hardcoded into the video, as shown below; No.Time.to.Die.2021.720p.HDCAM-C1NEM4
 These 'sponsored' releases suggest that someone has been paid to put the gambling ads there. This practice isn't new but, according to an unconfirmed report from NDTV, there are even intermittent gambling advertisements included in some releases. No Time to Die (2021) 720p CAMRip [Hindi-Dub]
 While Hollywood is generally quite concerned about pre-release leaks, the interest in these pirated Bond copies has been relatively modest. That's probably for a good reason. Aside from the fact that it's illegal to share pirated movies, we doubt that any true movie fans would prefer a low-quality release over waiting a few more days. Low-quality "Cam" releases tend to be ignored by most pirates, as recent data have confirmed. Even people who don't intend to pay for a theater ticket prefer to wait for a higher quality pirated version, which usually appears when the digital release comes out. This difference was also highlighted in our recent comparison between "Black Widow" and "Shang-Chi" piracy figures. A high-quality copy of the former was available on pirate sites immediately after its premiere, which resulted in much higher piracy numbers, for now. Although the Bond piracy number is not staggering, it certainly wouldn't hurt to bring the international box office premieres a bit closer. Especially for those poor Bond fans in Australia. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. |  In recent years the European Commission has proposed and adopted various legislative changes to help combat online piracy.
This includes the Copyright Directive which passed in 2019 as well as the Digital Services Act, which was officially unveiled last December. When it comes to the DSA, neither 'side' is completely satisfied with the proposed legislation. Copyright holders believe that it doesn't go far enough, while others warn that the proposal will lead to more upload filters, restricting people's freedom of speech. JURI Adopts Digital Services Act Over the past months, various stakeholders have lobbied lawmakers for improvements. Various changes were proposed by EU parliament groups as well, which eventually resulted in a compromise proposal that was adopted today by the European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI). The voting process on individual proposals was preceded by a lively debate with quite a bit of pushback, mainly from the Greens/EFA and S&D groups. This included the introduction of a speedy takedown process for pirated live streams, which should be taken down within 30-minutes. The opposition included Pirate Party MEP Patrick Breyer, who was one of the ten members who voted against the speedy takedown proposal, as Breyer himself highlighted on Twitter.  Trusted Flaggers The DSA also introduces strict takedown deadlines for other 'illegal' content, which has to be removed within 72 hours. At the same time, it will allow "trusted flaggers" to get preferential treatment in the takedown process. Earlier this week, several civil society groups, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, warned Members of Parliament against this "trusted flagged" system, which they deem as unfair. "Platforms should not be forced to apply one set of rules to ordinary users and a more permissive set of rules to influencer accounts and politicians. First-class treatment for sources and notifications of non-independent authorities or commercial entities should be rejected," their letter reads. These and other concerns didn't stop the JURI Committee from voting in favor of the draft proposal. While there is still a long way to go before the DSA is approved by the EU Parliament, it has certainly moved a step closer. More Pushback to Come Not all copyright holders are pleased with the current text either, as they believe it doesn't go far enough. They want to further increase liability for online services providers, for example, who should ensure that infringing content can't reappear online after it's been removed. Others believe that the current proposals already go too far. This includes Pirate Party MEP Patrick Breyer who fears that the current proposal will lead to more "error-prone" upload filters. "Algorithms cannot reliably identify illegal content and currently routinely result in the suppression of legal content, including media content. Reappearing content can be legal in a new context, for a new purpose, or posted by another author," Breyer notes. The Digital Services Act doesn't require services to implement upload filters. However, Breyer and others fear that this will effectively be the result of the new proposals. If we look at the controversy surrounding earlier copyright-related proposals in the EU, such as ACTA and the Copyright Act, we can expect more pushback from both sides in the months to come. From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment