Tuesday, October 12, 2021

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Google Opposes 'Sweeping' Popcorn Time Piracy Blocking Request
Ernesto Van der Sar, 12 Oct 11:42 AM

popcornFor more than seven years, Popcorn Time has been a thorn in the side of movie studios large and small.

The 'Netflix for Pirates' offers an easy-to-use application that opens the door to a library of thousands of streamable movies and TV shows.

Popcorn Time Crackdown

The Motion Picture Association (MPA) recognized this threat early on and pressured the original developers to throw in the towel. That worked, but it came too late as the open-source project was swiftly revived by others.

Over the past several years, Popcorn Time has lived on through many project forks. One of the most popular, Popcorntime.app, was targeted in a lawsuit filed by a group of independent movie companies, including the makers of "The Hitman's Bodyguard" and "London Has Fallen."

The filmmakers sued the anonymous PopcornTime.app operator together with the VPN service VPN.ht. The VPN service formally settled the case a few days ago but the same can't be said for the Popcorn Time fork.

Without a formal response from the app's developer, the movie companies recently moved for a default judgment, asking for millions of dollars in piracy damages. In addition, the rightsholders also requested an injunction that would directly impact third-party intermediaries, including Google.

Domain Blocking and More

Popcorntime.app is no longer online and the proposed injunction would require third-party service providers, including Cloudflare and Google, to stop people from accessing alternative Popcorn Time domains such as popcorn-ru.tk. Those measures include the removal of all search engine results.

The proposed injunction would also compel regular ISPs to block subscribers' access to Popcorn Time domain names. Thus far, no federal court has issued such a blocking order in a piracy case, but the filmmakers argue that this is an option under the DMCA.

Specifically, Section 512 of the DMCA allows for an order that required Internet providers "to block access, to a specific, identified, online location outside the United States." The movie companies believe that such a blocking order is warranted in this case and proposed the following language.

It is ORDERED that, within 60 days receipt of this order, all Internet Service Providers ("ISPs") subject to personal jurisdiction of the United States use their best technical efforts to BLOCK access on their servers or servers under their control to the following Target Domain Names at which Defendant's movie piracy app Popcorn Time is distributed: http://popcorn-ru.tk; https://popcorn-time.tw/; and https://popcorntime-online.ch/.

If granted, the broad language could affect a wide variety of Internet services including Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T. It could apply to Google as well, which is specifically mentioned in the order as the .app domain registrar and operator of the Google App store.

Google Objects

Google is not a party to this lawsuit and the company wasn't served with the legal paperwork. However, given the gravity of the potential measures, Google now informs the Virginia federal court that it would like to get involved.

"These provisions of Plaintiffs' Proposed Default Judgment Order are sweeping, burdensome, and contrary to law," Google writes, adding that it "could impact Google in its role as a domain name registry operator and online intermediary."

The proposed injunction could compel Google to take drastic action. This includes the removal of a list of infringing Popcorn Time domains, which the filmmakers can update twice a year.

Google's exact objections are not clear from the filing. The company simply asks for permission to share its concerns so more details will become available if this request is granted.

"Google seeks to file a brief to ensure that this Court understands why and to adequately protect its interests in the event that a default judgment is entered in this case," Google informs the court.

Thus far, Google is the only third-party intermediary to request a hearing in this case but it's not unlikely that other companies will follow in the near future, either before or after the final judgment comes in.

A copy of Google's memorandum in support of its motion to object to certain provisions of the proposed default judgment order is available here (pdf)

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

Don't Believe Nitro IPTV 'Lies', We Need Access to Their Millions, Hollywood Says
Andy Maxwell, 11 Oct 09:57 PM

IPTVIn April 2020, members of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment including Columbia, Amazon, Disney, Paramount, Warner, and Universal filed a lawsuit in the US against the operators of Nitro TV.

Together they alleged that the pirate platform, led by Alejandro "Alex" Galindo, engaged in "massive and blatant infringement" of their copyrighted works including hit TV show The Office and movies such as Joker.

A May 2020 injunction prevented the service from operating but Galindo was reportedly uncooperative in the discovery process and was accused of destroying evidence, for which the studios demanded monetary sanctions.

Nitro TV: Court Should Dismiss Case

Late last month, counsel for Galindo told the court that the reason his client had refused to answer questions is that he fears the endgame for the studios could be a criminal prosecution.

In the meantime, the studios are still trying to serve Martha Galindo (Alejandro Galindo's mother) since she allegedly played a major role in the finances of the Nitro operation. The failure to serve Martha is clearly a key issue for the studios but the resulting delays in the case are also cited by Alejandro as a reason to dismiss the case entirely.

Unsurprisingly, the studios are now taking an entirely opposite stance.

Untimely, Frivolous Opposition Containing "Outright Lies"

In their quest to serve Martha with their second amended complaint, the studios sought permission from the court to serve by alternative means. Alejandro opposed the motion but according to the plaintiffs that submission is flawed, not least since among other things, it contains "outright lies".

The studios say that Alejandro's assertion that their work to serve Martha is slowing the case down is incorrect. In fact, if anyone is to blame for this hindrance, it is him.

"Defendant seems to be taking the position throughout his [opposition] that Plaintiffs' request for leave to serve Martha Galindo by alternative means 'causing an unreasonable delay.' That is incorrect and frankly laughable given the record," they inform the court.

"Defendant conveniently fails to acknowledge that Plaintiffs have sought Martha Galindo's address from him through interrogatories in order to serve her, but he has refused to provide that information."

In addition to holding this piece of information back, the studios say that Alejandro hasn't produced a single document in response to requests, has failed to provide interrogatory responses, and later pleaded the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering their questions.

"If Defendant wants this case to move faster, he may provide all of the discovery Plaintiffs have requested," they add.

The Importance of Serving Martha Galindo

While it appears that Alejandro was the person in charge of the Nitro TV service, the importance of serving Martha Galindo becomes apparent when reviewing the studios' assessment of her role in the operation. In short, Martha managed the money and in common with any civil action of this type, the studios ultimately want to get their hands on it.

According to the movie and TV companies, third-party subpoenas allowed them to discover that over $7 million in sales of Nitro TV subscriptions and reseller credits were made through accounts held in Martha's name. These accounts were also used to pay for streaming servers and other infrastructure necessary to operate the Nitro TV service.

Also of note is that the accounts were used to make payments to a company that earned significant sums to promote and market the Nitro TV service.

Firestream LLC is reportedly operated by Veronica Orellana, the wife of Raul Orellana, who is more commonly known online as YouTuber 'Touchtone'. According to the plaintiffs, he received more than half a million dollars to market Nitro TV to the masses. Both Raul and Firestream LLC are named defendants in the ACE lawsuit.

Alejandro is Trying To Prevent Access to Millions

In summary, the studios believe that Alejandro's refusal to cooperate is aimed, at least in part, at preventing the studios from accessing the money generated by Nitro TV.

"It is, thus, clear that Martha Galindo is not only deeply involved with Nitro TV but is also holding substantial amounts of revenues derived from the Nitro TV infringing enterprise in her accounts. Accordingly, for Plaintiffs to obtain full relief, they must be able to bring Martha Galindo into this case so that she is subject to the ultimate judgment entered by this Court," they write.

"There can be no doubt that [Alejandro] is opposing Plaintiff's Motion for this very reason so as to prevent Plaintiffs from accessing the Nitro TV monies. It is for that same reason that Defendant has not provided Martha Galindo's address in response to Plaintiffs' discovery requests."

As a result, the studios ask the court to allow them to serve Martha by alternative means. There is a suggestion she may now be located in Mexico so the proposals include service via email, service via Alejandro Galindo's counsel (who previously declined such a request), mail to an identified address in Texas, and via a Facebook message.

The studios' reply to the court can be found here (pdf)

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: