Friday, March 18, 2022

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Triller Abandons Multi-Million 'Jake Paul' Fight Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
Andy Maxwell, 18 Mar 10:47 AM

TrillerJake Paul vs Ben Askren was one the most-hyped boxing events of recent years, despite the former having limited experience in the boxing ring and the latter having none.

Askren was quickly knocked out in the Triller-promoted match, giving fans poor value for their PPV spend. Well, those who paid for it, at least.

Soon after the event was over, Triller promised a scorched-earth approach to all pirates, from those who simply watched the fight to those who allegedly facilitated access to it. Almost a year down the line the legal campaign is mirroring the success of Askren, if we take Askren's significant purse out of the equation.

Chasing Down FilmDaily

The first big legal assault targeted many services and individuals said to have pirated the fight. The first site on the list was FilmDaily.co which together with the other defendants (we'll come to some of those later), found themselves on the end of a $100m damages claim filed in April 2021.

Just a few weeks later a judge decimated the lawsuit after Triller failed to prove that any of the entities acted jointly and should therefore be handled in the same lawsuit. All other entities were dismissed from the case, leaving FilmDaily.co as the sole defendant. In July 2021, with Triller appearing to do little to progress the case, the court warned the lawsuit could be dismissed for lack of prosecution.

Triller responded, informing the court that it was working behind the scenes and had been able to discover the "true identity" of those behind FilmDaily. Triller told the court it was preparing an amended complaint but it made no difference. Triller was supposed to serve the defendant within 90 days but failed to do. As a result, the case was dismissed.

Yet Another Lawsuit Targets FilmDaily

As the first named defendant in its lawsuit campaign, Triller seemed determined to make an example of FilmDaily and those behind it. So it filed yet another lawsuit (pdf), this time against FilmDaily.co and its alleged operator, Frances Levi.

Triller alleged willful copyright infringement (for distributing, uploading, copying, and publicly displaying the fight), violations of the Federal Communications Act (interception/misuse of a satellite broadcast), and vicarious copyright infringement in respect of the infringing acts of those who allegedly viewed the fight on FilmDaily.

Exactly how much in damages Triller intended to claim was unclear since it produced no evidence to back up any of its claims. However, given its past actions, it was likely to run into the millions given the potential damages on offer. But, like the previous attempts to squeeze something from FilmDaily, this effort also went absolutely nowhere too.

Triller Dismisses Its Own Case

In its most recent attempt at a lawsuit against FilmDaily and Frances Levi, the allegations were pretty vague, to say the least. Triller claimed that the defendants made several posts on Reddit with various titles including "Live Reddit! Jake Paul vs Ben Askren Stream Free, How to Watch?" and which contained clickable links titled "Click to Watch Paul vs Askren Live Free".

After providing screenshots of these links, Triller jumped straight into claims of "calculated and reprehensible infringement, theft, and other unlawful acts," related to the supposed illegal broadcasting of the event. None of this was supported by any evidence.

While producing rock-solid evidence of infringement usually arrives as a case progresses, the complaint failed to show even a prime facie case of wrongdoing, such as a URL where the fight was offered or even a basic screenshot of the fight being aired on the platform. In fact, the only screenshot from FilmDaily shows the site advertising the fight as being available on Triller for $49.99.

Triller Filmdaily Exhibit

It's worth noting that FilmDaily appears to deploy clickbait-style advertising to attract people to its 'news' site and while it's not exactly clear what happened here, there is nothing to show that the platform ever streamed this fight, which is the core of the entire complaint.

Triller Dismisses Its Own Case

After hiring an outside party to track Levi down, Triller attempted to serve Levi at three addresses in Los Angeles on six separate occasions, ultimately failing to serve by a November 2021 deadline. It was then granted an extension by the court which required it to serve the defendants by February 9, 2022.

That didn't happen.

So with a whimper rather than a bang, Triller dismissed its own flagship lawsuit against its original number one defendant FilmDaily. There's nothing on the record to show that any contact was made or any settlement reached, let alone millions in damages.

Filmdaily Dismissal Triller

It seems fair to say that this legal campaign hasn't gone well. After hoping to win $100 million in damages, Triller appears to have prevailed in just one case against YouTuber Matthew Space, the person behind the Eclipt Gaming channel. In that matter Triller demanded $170K+ in damages but was awarded just $15,000.

Another lawsuit against YouTuber 'ItsLilBrandon' was thrown out after Triller failed to follow the court's orders.

Several other cases are pending but thus far, none appear to be moving in a positive direction. One example is the case against YouTuber Arvin De La Santos, the alleged operator of the YouTube channel YourEXTRA.

Triller reportedly agreed to settle the lawsuit but after the agreement was signed and the fee was paid, the company reportedly returned the money and resumed legal action. Unfortunately, the defendant's lawyer has just informed the court that his client has no means to pay for a defense so permission has been requested (1,2) for him to withdraw.

Only time will tell whether any of the other complaints will bear fruit but if progress thus far is any metric, this expensive legal campaign may have become more trouble than its worth.

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

WIPO's Pirate Site Blocklist Expands to 4,042 Active Domain Names
Ernesto Van der Sar, 17 Mar 10:55 PM

wipo alertAround the world, there is a variety of blocking schemes targeted at pirate sites. Some require ISPs to block access, while others focus on advertisers.

The idea behind the advertising blocklist is that pirate sites are unable to survive without revenue. While it's no silver bullet, there is some anecdotal evidence that this strategy can be effective.

Advertising blocklists are not new but, until a few years ago, these were relatively local. Pirate sites, however, often cater to a global audience. This lack of coordination motivated the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to develop a global system based on input from countries around the world.

WIPO Alert Blocklist

WIPO, which is part of the United Nations, was founded more than 50 years ago with the aim of protecting intellectual property. This includes combating online piracy, something it hopes to facilitate with its "WIPO Alert" blocklist.

The goal of the project is simple; allow stakeholders from member states to report problematic sites and share the resulting list with advertisers, so they can block bad apples. This should result in less money going to pirate sites, making it harder for them to generate profit.

The "WIPO Alert" system stayed mostly under the radar but we've kept a close eye on the project. Thus far, 11 countries are participating; Brazil, Ecuador, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Mexico, Peru, Republic of Korea, Russia, Spain and Ukraine.

The number of domain names included in the databases is also growing rapidly but keeping track of the changes is hard, as WIPO is not publishing much detail in public.

This limited transparency isn't WIPO's choice. Talking to TorrentFreak, WIPO's legal counsellor Thomas Dillon explains that many of the participating countries prefer to keep the details private, as they don't want to 'promote' pirate sites.

"What holds us back from publishing the database is that some participating Contributors consider that it would be undesirable to make their lists generally available, as this would effectively advertise the infringing websites.

"WIPO is really bound therefore to leave the issue of publication for decision at the national level," Dillon adds.

7,717 Domains, 4,042 Active

The organization is trying to get as much information out under these restrictions and was kind enough to share some further details. For example, that there are now 7,717 domains listed in the database.

Pirate sites comes and go and some change domains, so many of the listed names are no longer active. According to WIPO, 4,042 of the domain names in its database point to a working site at the moment.

Without sharing any names, WIPO said that the majority of the targeted sites have a .com domain, followed by .net, .ru, and .org.

In an effort to provide more transparency the organization made another major change a few days ago. The public is now allowed to search the database to see if a specific domain is listed.

Not all countries signed up for this. Thus far, Italy, Russia, Spain, Peru, Ecuador, and Lithuania have agreed to add domains to the searchable portion of the WIPO Alert database but not all information is complete yet as it's still being rolled out.

fmovies blocked

As shown above, a quick search for "thepiratebay.org" reveals that it's on the advertising blocklist in Italy and Spain, while "fmovies.to" is blocked in Lithuania and Italy.

Appeals?

With the added transparency, WIPO makes its easier for site operators to check whether they are listed and potentially appeal. Until recently, this was not possible.

"We are constantly trying to enhance the system – in this case, site operators who are concerned that their sites might be listed on WIPO ALERT can carry out a check and contact the national authority concerned if necessary," Dillon tells us.

WIPO itself remains a neutral intermediary that merely operates and facilitates the blocklist system. The organization doesn't proactively notify site operators to inform them that they're being targeted.

"WIPO does not attempt to contact the affected domain operators – notification and appeal procedures are a matter for the national agencies," Dillon notes.

Similarly, WIPO doesn't evaluate whether a site should be blocked or not, it simply takes on the recommendations from the participating countries, who often have their own checks and balances.

14 Advertising Companies

The effectiveness of the advertising blocklist doesn't only depend on the number of listed domains. How many advertising companies are participating is equally important.

The WIPO Alerts system is free of charge and open to all advertising agencies. Thus far, fourteen commercial companies and three trade organizations have joined and WIPO informs us that it's in the process of signing up another international media group.

Blocking brand ads on pirate sites undeniably has an effect since it limits the advertising options for pirate sites. How effective it is in cutting off the money supply has yet to be seen, however, as there are still plenty of advertisers left who are eager to team up with pirates.

With more advertisers joining and additional domain names being blocked every year, we expect the WIPO Alerts database to grow accordingly. We plan to check in again next year to see where things stand then.

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: