TorrentFreak's Latest News

AimJunkies Returns Fire in Destiny 2 Copyright Lawsuit: 'Cheating Isn't Against the Law'Ernesto Van der Sar, 11 Jan 11:36 AM Over the past several y

AimJunkies Returns Fire in Destiny 2 Copyright Lawsuit: 'Cheating Isn't Against the Law' Ernesto Van der Sar, 11 Jan 11:36 AM Over the past several years a wave of copyright infringement lawsuits have been filed against alleged cheaters or cheat makers. Several game companies including Take-Two Interactive and Epic Games, have taken cheaters to court. More recently, American video game developer Bungie joined in on the action. Bungie is known for the Halo and Destiny series, which have millions of fans around the world. The popularity of these games also attracts cheaters, including those who used the 'Destiny 2 Hacks' suite that was offered for sale at AimJunkies.com. Bungie Sued AimJunkies In a complaint filed at a Seattle federal court last June, Bungie accused AimJunkies.com of copyright and trademark infringement, among other things. The same accusations were also made against Phoenix Digital Group, the alleged creators of the software. Initially, the parties entered settlement discussions. AimJunkies has already removed the Destiny 2 cheats from its site and was willing to negotiate. However, when Bungie moved for a default judgment, reportedly without prior warning, the mood changed. Yesterday AimJunkies returned fire, asking the federal court to dismiss the lawsuit. The cheat seller, represented by attorney Philip P. Mann, argues that Bungie misuses the law to go after cheaters while cheating itself isn't unlawful. 'Cheating Isn't Against the Law' This goal is clear from Bungie's complaint where Bungie mentions that, through the lawsuit, it hopes to "put cheaters on notice" that the game company "will not tolerate cheating." "What is really going on here is Bungie's transparent misuse of the legal system to achieve ends not actually permitted under laws actually passed by Congress," AimJunkies writes, adding that "Congress, not Bungie, sets the rules." "Bungie apparently hopes to bamboozle this court into proscribing entirely lawful activities. This court should not be party to such questionable tactics and should apply the laws that actually exist, not those Bungie apparently conjures out of thin air." While cheating may not be outlawed, Bungie's claims are rooted in law. This includes several copyright infringement allegations. According to Bungie, AimJunkies copied and distributed its copyrighted work, to develop and advertise its cheat software. Copyright Questions In response, AimJunkies argues that these copyright infringement allegations are vague and not specific enough to allege a plausible claim. The cheat software itself certainly isn't a copy of Bungie's work, they add. The cheat maker also highlights another problem with Bungie's copyright claims. The original complaint lists four copyright registrations but two of these were first published on November 10, 2020, well after the cheats were first made available. Based on this finding, it would have been impossible for AimJunkies to use the copyrighted work to create its cheats, as the copyrights had yet to be fully registered. "[T]he 'cheat software' Bungie complains of in this action was created and distributed long before November 10, 2020, and, therefore, could not have been 'copied' from these work. "For this reason, there is no set of facts on which Bungie can plausibly claim that Defendants' earlier created work was based on or otherwise copied from Bungie's later created works. It is a factual and legal impossibility long recognized by the courts." AimJunkies further notes that Bungie has no plausible trademark infringement claim and wants these dismissed as well. The cheat seller also questions the court's jurisdiction and counters the other accusations, including "breach of contract," "tortious interference," and "unjust enrichment." The latter claims don't belong in federal court either, AimJunkies notes. It points out that Bungie's own License Agreement (LSLA) prescribes that, aside from copyright and trademark issues, mandatory arbitration is the 'sole means' by which disputes are to be resolved. 'Bungie is a Bully' According to AimJunkies, it is clear that Bungie is trying to use its power to "bully" others into submission, but it's not having any of it. "This is another case of well-heeled companies using their superior resources to bully others and achieve through the courts what they cannot accomplish in the marketplace. Although the rich have as much right to seek redress through the courts as the poor, they nevertheless need to follow the rules that apply to all. Bungie has not done that here." In conclusion, the cheat seller asks the federal court to dismiss the complaint or – if that's not an option – refer the appropriate claims to arbitration. Needless to say, Bungie will likely see things quite differently and the company is expected to respond to AimJunkie's arguments in a few weeks. — A copy of AimJunkie's motion to dismiss, which also represents Phoenix Digital Group LLC and several individually named defendants, is available here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. RIAA: Yout's Attempt to Legitimize Stream-Ripping is 'Wordplay' Ernesto Van der Sar, 10 Jan 09:13 PM Downloading audio and video is prohibited by YouTube's terms of service but there are numerous 'stream-ripping' sites available on the web that do just that. These services are a thorn in the side of music industry outfits, who see them as a major piracy threat. The operators and users of the stream-ripping tools disagree and point out that there are legal uses as well. At the end of 2020, the operator of one of the largest stream-rippers took matters into his own hands. Instead of hiding in the shadows like some competitors, Yout.com owner Johnathan Nader sued the RIAA, asking the federal court in Connecticut to declare the service as non-infringing. The case has been ongoing for more than a year now and Yout.com has filed two amended complaints, which addressed earlier shortcomings and refined the legal arguments. At the heart of the dispute is the question of whether Yout's service violates the DMCA's provision that prohibits the circumvention of technological protection measures (TPMs). Yout.com argues that YouTube doesn't have meaningful technical protection measures so there is nothing to circumvent. In just a few steps, anyone can download audio and video from the site without additional tools. This argument was reiterated last month when Yout responded to RIAA's motion to dismiss the case. RIAA Responds to 'No TPM' Claim The RIAA sees things quite differently as it highlighted in a response filed at the court a few days ago. The music group points out that Yout repeats many of the arguments it previously made, which the RIAA characterizes as "wordplay". "[Yout]'s opposition to RIAA's motion to dismiss repeats many of the same failed arguments that Plaintiff made in the prior round of briefing and again resorts to wordplay to manufacture a disputed issue of fact," RIAA writes. The music group specifically cites the DMCA which points out that a technological measure is considered a TPM if it, "in the ordinary course of its operation" requires a process or a treatment to access copyrighted video or audio. Yout's defense noted that people can go through a series of steps to acquire a "sequence of numbers" in the "Request URL" to then download audio video from YouTube themselves. A valid point, but the RIAA notes that this actually confirms that there are protection measures in place. "[T]hose allegations actually prove that there is a TPM (rolling cipher or by any other name)," RIAA writes. "In the ordinary course, a YouTube user does not obtain or interact with a signature value or Request URL, or reach a download button—ever. In the ordinary course, the user only sees the stream of a music video." No Cipher Needed The RIAA stresses that, even though Yout disputes the "rolling cipher" terminology, the service still helps to bypass copyright protections. That people can also bypass these on their own through a web browser doesn't matter. The second part of the argument is that Yout circumvents these TPMs. The stream-ripper argued that it simply uses the publicly available code of YouTube's website without disabling or voiding anything. However, the RIAA sees things in a different light. In fact, the music group uses Yout's own words to argue that it is indeed circumventing protection measures. "Plaintiff pleads that it interacts with these TPMs by 'modif[ying]' the 'range=' numerical sequence. That the Yout service provides its users with an 'automated' way to avoid or bypass the TPMs to gain access to the file —including modifying a sequence of numbers in YouTube's source code,— is textbook circumvention." Court Will Decide The above makes it clear that both sides agree on most facts, but not on how these should be interpreted. It is now up to the court to decide which party has the best arguments. Needless to say, this decision is crucial to the future of Yout and many other stream-ripping services. In its complaint Yout also argued that RIAA's takedown notices defamed the service, which resulted in a loss of revenue. This could come into play later, but only if Yout's activities are not violating the DMCA. — A copy of RIAA's reply in support of its motion to dismiss Yout's second amended complaint is available here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. ©2022 TorrentFreak | Office 21338 PO Box 4336 Manchester, North West M61 0BW United Kingdom Web Version   Preferences   Forward   Unsubscribe     Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company