Thursday, December 2, 2021

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Triller Celebrates Win Over Pirate YouTuber But Judge Slashes Damages
Andy Maxwell, 02 Dec 11:40 AM

TrillerAfter Jake Paul knocked out Ben Askren in the short-lived main event of a Triller fight card earlier this year, it was no surprise to learn that the event had been heavily pirated online.

This lit a fire under Triller Fight Club, which responded with a wave of lawsuits aimed at bringing the perpetrators to justice. One of the company's targets was Matthew Space, the young operator of the Eclipt Gaming YouTube channel which usually specializes in gaming videos but also uploaded the fight after the event had finished.

According to Triller's evidence the video received just 297 views but Space's actions were nevertheless described by the plaintiff as "calculated and reprehensible infringement". Triller alleged two types of copyright infringement alongside violations of the Federal Communications Act and, at least initially, demanded millions of dollars in damages.

While Askren at least put up a short fight back in April, Space failed to defend himself in any way, meaning that Triller came away with a win this week via a default judgment. However, despite Triller's grand claims regarding the damages owed due to Space's conduct, the judge wasn't convinced by the calculations in the company's proposed default judgment.

Proposed Default Judgment Amount Excessive

Filed in October, Triller's motion demanded statutory damages of $150,000 for Space's willful infringement under the Copyright Act. It further requested $10,000 for violations of the Federal Communications Act plus costs and attorneys' fees, reaching a grand total of $171,190.

After reviewing the motion, California District Judge R. Gary Klausner found that considering the seriousness of Space's conduct, the amounts requested were far too high.

Claim Under Copyright Act

Part of Triller's calculations for the losses it suffered were derived from the claim that as a result of the fight being uploaded to YouTube, Space's channel saw an increase of around 70,000 views. At a PPV fee of $49.99, Triller claimed that its losses could've been as high as $3.5m but Judge Klausner wasn't convinced.

"[T]his figure does not necessarily indicate that 70,000 unique individuals streamed the Broadcast through Defendants' channel. Rather, because the same person could have watched the Broadcast several times, or could have watched the various non-infringing videos on Defendants' channel, it simply shows that Defendants' entire YouTube channel gained 70,000 views after the Broadcast was uploaded," he writes.

"Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that 300 unique viewers watched the Broadcast through Defendants' channel, and it includes a screenshot showing that the video had garnered 297 views. Thus, the Court finds it more plausible that 300 individual viewers watched the Broadcast in the short time it was available than that 70,000 individuals did so."

In summary, the Court found that Triller lost $15,000 ($49.99 x 300) as a result of Space's conduct and that $15,000 is a justified statutory damages award under the Copyright Act.

Claim Under Federal Communications Act

Noting that statutory damages for a violation of 47 U.S. Code § 605 (unauthorized publication or use of communications) can range from $1,000 to $10,000, the Judge found that since Space had not previously violated the Act and only one violation is being alleged in this matter, an award towards the lower end would be appropriate.

"[P]laintiff does not indicate how long Defendants' YouTube video of the Broadcast remained available to the viewing public, providing only that it 'promptly' notified YouTube of the infringing content," the Judge writes.

"Assuming that 300 individuals watched the Broadcast via Defendants' YouTube channel and that none of them paid a fee to Defendants, the Court finds that an award of $1,000 is appropriate here."

While a total of $16,000 in damages is way lower than the amount demanded by Triller, Space will also have to pay the company's costs and attorneys' fees. That amount is yet to be decided by the Court for technical reasons but is likely to exceed $1,200.

Triller Applauds Default Judgment

In a lengthy press release celebrating its victory, Triller mentioned nothing of the actual damages award but held up the judgment as a warning to other potential infringers.

"We are pleased to have the Court stand with Fight Club and, more importantly, send a shot over the bow of anyone who seeks to infringe on the lawful rights of artists and the platforms that support them," said Mahi de Silva, TrillerNet's Chief Executive Officer.

The sentiment was echoed by TrillerNet co-founder Ryan Kavanaugh.

"If someone broke into a Tesla dealer and stole 10 cars it wouldn't even be a question, the law would punish them," he said.

"Our losses from these bad actors pirating and profiting off of our events are even greater than those examples. We are pleased with the outcome and hopeful it will set a precedent for us and all content creators going forward that stealing is not going to be tolerated."

The default judgment can be found here (pdf)

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

"John Doe" Accuses BitTorrent Copyright Troll of Using Menacing Pressure Tactics
Ernesto Van der Sar, 01 Dec 10:00 PM

carOver the past years, adult entertainment company Strike 3 Holdings has filed thousands of cases in US federal courts.

These lawsuits target people whose Internet connections were allegedly used to download and share copyright-infringing content via BitTorrent.

This practice is often described as "copyright trolling" and the cases almost never go to trial. Instead, they are typically resolved with settlements, where those accused agreed to pay a sum of money to have the case dismissed.

Preventing Misuse

In recent years courts have grown weary of this legal scheme. Some no longer accept these types of lawsuits and other courts provide clear and detailed instructions to prevent misuse.

The latter also applies to the federal court in Maryland, which allows Strike 3 to obtain the personal details of alleged infringers, but with strict guidelines.

The information cannot be used "to harass" defendants, for example, and Strike 3 is not allowed to directly engage in any settlement communications. Instead, all settlement attempts require prior approval from the court.

stroke prohibit

In a recent case, Strike 3 violated these rules, defense attorney J. Curtis Edmondson argues. The lawyer represents a Cameroonian native, who immigrated to the US and has since been naturalized. The man works at an NGO where he helps people who are infected with HIV/AIDS.

'No Connection to The Infringements'

Strike 3 linked his IP address to repeated copyright infringements. However, according to the defense lawyer, there is nothing aside from the IP address that suggests that his client was involved. As such, he denied the allegations in a recent court filing.

"There is nothing in the public record that would remotely suggest that John Doe was the infringer of the works, rather the search would reveal that John Doe is a professional and is an author or coauthor of numerous scientific publications," Edmondson writes.

"Since there was no information connecting John Doe to the alleged infringements, Strike 3's intent at this point going forward was to pressure John Doe into a de minimus nuisance settlement [to] 'pay-off' Strike 3 to avoid financial risk to his family."

While there may not be any indication that "John Doe" is a pirate, authors of scientific publications can easily infringe copyrights. The same is true for elderly people, doctors, and firemen.

'Menacing Process Server'

That said, John Doe's background isn't the main issue here. Defense attorney J. Curtis Edmondson argues that Strike 3 committed contempt of court since the process server who was hired to notify his client used menacing pressure tactics.

It started on an August morning when the wife of John Doe spotted a red Hyundai car parked in their driveway. The driver sat there for about half an hour before he knocked on the door, asking to speak to John Doe.

Doe's wife explained that her husband was on an important work call, but the process server replied that it was a "very important matter" and urged him to come down. This is indeed what happened, and when the man arrived at the door he was handed a thick envelope.

"…This is a legal document for a deposition related to the downloading of pornographic materials from the internet…," the process server then said, to best of John Doe's recollection.

These comments were allegedly made while Doe's wife and kid were present, and he responded by saying that he had no idea what this was about. That didn't help much, however.

'Trying to be Discreet'

"..by the way, I am trying to be discreet and not have your wife find out..", the Process Server then said, according to Doe's recollection adding that: "…we all sometimes do things like that… and watch adult content movies…"

process server

The process server continued by stressing that this is a very important matter and reportedly told John Doe to call the lawyer who was listed in the document. That would be Strike 3's lawyer.

'Pressure to Settle'

John Doe's lawyer argues that the process server's behavior and comments were intended to pressure him into settling the matter, which would violate the court's order.

"The Process Server's act of menacing John Doe and his family by parking on his property for a period of one half hour before to and one half hour afterwards was a clear signal to compel John Doe to call Strike 3's lawyer to discuss settlement in violation of ECF 6, paragraph 5."

"The Process Server's statements to John Doe for him to call Strike 3's lawyer was done with the intent to have John Doe to enter settlement negotiations directly with Strike 3," Doe's lawyer adds.

On top of that, the defense indirectly argues that the behavior of the process server could also be seen as 'harassment,' which would also violate the court's order.

As a result, John Doe is now countersuing Strike 3 for contempt of court and requests damages to prevent such litigation abuses going forward. In addition, the Cameroonian immigrant also asks for a declaratory judgment to confirm that he didn't engage in any copyright infringing activities.

John Doe's answer to the complaint and the counterclaims are available here (pdf)

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: