Wednesday, March 2, 2022

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Yout.com Challenges Site Blocking in Peru, Strands in Spain
Ernesto Van der Sar, 02 Mar 12:26 PM

yout logoThe music industry has pushed for site blocking measures around the world, with quite a bit of success.

Among the main targets are popular stream-ripping services. This includes Yout.com, which is operated by the American developer Johnathan Nader.

Unlike many of his peers, Nader isn't simply taking these blocking orders lying down. On the contrary, where possible, he actively challenges them in court, as we've seen in Denmark, Spain, and Brazil.

The Brazilian appeal was an initial success as the court lifted the ISP blockade. However, this didn't last. When the authorities officially announced that Yout.com would be criminally prosecuted, the blocking measures were reinstated.

Peru's Stream-Ripper Blockades

In Peru, a similar issue has emerged. Last spring local ISPs were ordered to block Yout.com and other stream-ripping sites as a precautionary measure, while the authorities conducted their investigations for potential legal action against the sites.

The temporary blocking measure came at the request of the government agency INDECOPI, which works closely with rightsholder groups such as IFPI. The authorities argue that the stream-ripping sites allow users to download content from YouTube without permission.

Interestingly, the content cited in the complaint is not related to music. Instead, it lists short films such as "Hair Love" and "Almost Home."

According to the original injunction, the blockades had to remain in place for 30 days. However, almost a year has passed since and several major Peruvian ISPs are still blocking Yout.com and other sites.

Yout's 'Appeal'

This prompted Yout.com's operator to hire a local attorney to appeal the injunction at Peru's Competition and Intellectual Property Court. In a ruling released a few days ago, the court clarified that there is no legal requirement for the ISPs to continue blocking the sites.

"…to date no complaint or sanctioning procedure has been initiated with respect to the works mentioned in Table No. 1; therefore, the Chamber concludes that the precautionary measure under appeal has expired," the court's Specialized Intellectual Property Chamber writes (translated pdf).

While this sounds like a win for Yout.com, in reality the issue is more complicated. Since the court concludes that the precautionary measure no longer applies, it can't be appealed either.

"There is no need to rule on the appeal against the injunction granted in the First Instance, filed by Yout LLC," the court writes.

The problem for Yout is that the ISPs are still blocking the site, even though they are not legally required to do so. The site's attorney has reached out to both INDECOPI and the ISPs, urging them to lift the expired measures.

If the ISPs choose to keep the blockades in place, Yout can potentially file a formal complaint in court. However, that will likely take months to play out and will increase the legal bills significantly.

No Appeal Possible in Spain

In addition to the problematic situation in Peru, Yout.com also has a setback in Spain last week. The stream-ripper site is blocked there as well but this order wasn't easy to track down.

Through the RIAA, Yout's lawyers eventually learned that the blockade, which also targets several other stream-rippers, was ordered by a court in Barcelona following a complaint from the anti-piracy group AGEDI.

Yout then filed an official appeal at Spain's Supreme Court. Among other things, the site objected to the fact that it wasn't in any way involved in the blocking lawsuit.

The Supreme Court denied hearing this appeal because Yout.com is not a party to the legal procedure. That was, ironically, one of the main reasons why the appeal was filed in the first place.

According to Yout's Spanish lawyers, there are still some legal options but they estimate the chance of successfully overturning the order at less than 1% now.

Frustrating

Speaking with TorrentFreak, Yout's operator indicated that he's frustrated with all the legal roadblocks that continue to show up. However, he will continue to fight these blocking measures whenever possible.

"I'm elated: after the RIAA informed us of the legal actions and proceedings we were not privy to in other countries; I was able to at least show up and defend myself," Nader tells us.

In addition to the blocking cases, Yout also filed a lawsuit against the RIAA in the United States, hoping to have the site declared legal there. That case remains ongoing.

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

DISH: Pirate IPTV Operators Launched New Services Despite $90m Judgment
Andy Maxwell, 01 Mar 07:26 PM

IPTV In 2018, broadcaster DISH Network sued the people behind pirate IPTV service SetTV for illegally obtaining the company's broadcasting from its satellite service and redistributing them online.

At a Florida court, DISH and encryption partner NagraStar sued several individuals, companies and trusts collectively doing business as SetTV via the domain settvnow.com. The plaintiffs stated that the complex business structure was designed to frustrate enforcement efforts and hide profits made by SET Broadcast LLC and various individuals.

The plaintiffs alleged that the $20 per month service offered access to 500 live channels, including on-demand content and PPV broadcasts, plus pre-configured hardware devices that came pre-loaded with the SetTV application. For this they demanded millions of dollars in damages under the Federal Communications Act (FCA).

Within months, the lawsuit was over. In a final judgment, operators Nelson Johnson and Jason LaBossiere plus Set Broadcast LLC and Streaming Entertainment Technology LLC agreed to pay DISH a staggering $90,199,000 in damages for violations of the FCA.

Via a permanent injunction issued by the court in October 2018, all defendants and their cohorts were permanently enjoined from breaching DISH rights in the future, including by operating any similar services or selling devices. However, according to a lengthy submission filed with the court Monday, the defendants should be held in contempt for violating the permanent injunction.

In short, DISH believes the defendants are well and truly back in the pirate IPTV business and the company has a lot of evidence to back up its claims.

DISH Wants Court to Reinstate The Case

On June 4, 2018, the court issued a temporary restraining order against the SetTV defendants, which included measures to freeze their assets. According to DISH, that was based on the defendants' "extensive criminal backgrounds and histories of violating court orders in other contexts."

DISH says that LaBossiere co-owned SetTV with two other men – Sean Beaman and Stefan Gollner. In a one-year period leading up to its lawsuit, Beaman's companies received $4.7 million from SetTV. Immediately after the DISH lawsuit was filed, an additional $800,000 was transferred in the same direction.

DISH claims that $3.4 million was transferred from accounts in violation of the court's asset freeze but after showing a copy of a contempt motion to the defendants' council, the defendants plus Beaman engaged in settlement discussions. That included a confidential settlement, an agreed final judgment, a permanent injunction, plus an agreement from Beaman to be bound by that injunction.

That hasn't gone to plan. DISH says that LaBossiere, Beaman, and Gollner are behind several other new pirate IPTV services and brands including ExpediteTV, UptickTV, Mundo TV, PingTV, and Must TV, in defiance of the injunction.

Men Never Left the Pirate IPTV Business

ExpediteTV, which offered 800+ channels for around $24, was touted as the "best deal on IPTV". DISH investigators subscribed to the service (via expeditetv.com) and carried out monitoring between January 2019 and February 2020. The broadcaster found its watermarks on content being offered by the service, plus content that had been obtained by DISH affiliate Sling TV.

Roy Clemons was an officer at the original SET TV LLC and together with brother Brent Clemons, was retained by LaBossiere, Beaman, and Gollner to process credit card payments for the SetTV service. The Clemons brothers were retained to process payments for ExpediteTV too, and were tasked to set up entities, bank accounts and merchant accounts to receive funds.

Evidence obtained by DISH from the brothers includes text messages where Beaman discusses ExpediteTV with Ken Clemons and asks for money to be transferred to a Wells Fargo bank account, established by Gollner around a month after the permanent injunction was issued. Between January and May 2019, 86 payments explicitly citing ExpediteTV were deposited to a total of more than $1 million.

DISH alleges that LaBossiere, Beaman, and Gollner also sold ExpediteTV subscriptions that were later identified on credit card records as 'UptickTV', another IPTV selling entity with a domain owned by Beaman under a fictitious business name registered to LaBossiere's address in Largo, Florida.

DISH Obtains Evidence From Jailhouse Phone Recordings

In May 2021, DISH obtained evidence from the business chat service Avochato showing that LaBossiere, Beaman, and Gollner used it to sell and market ExpediteTV subscriptions to customers who were then serviced via the same platform. The Avochato account was created by Beaman and his credit cards and Gollner's bank account were associated with it.

In the same month, DISH obtain telephone recordings from the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office that show an apparently incarcerated LaBossiere discussing the ExpediteTV service and legal action by DISH with Beaman and Osivette Brito. Brito is described as a reseller of SetTV subscriptions and the developer of the ExpediteTV software.

LaBossiere reportedly made 850 telephone calls in April and May 2021, including 68 calls to Beaman and 81 calls to Brito. One call took place two days after DISH contacted LaBossiere's counsel regarding the ExpediteTV service and according to DISH, that news had reached the defendants.

"Brito informed LaBossiere that Brent Clemons 'open[ed] his mouth,' that DISH was enforcing the SetTV judgment, and advised LaBossiere to speak with his counsel because '[t]hey know Sean. They know you. They know everything'," DISH informs the court.

Yet More Pirate IPTV Services

According to DISH, other IPTV brands (including Mundo TV) that retransmit DISH and Sling TV content are also related to the same men.

It appears that DISH may have been alerted to these services after receiving an unsolicited email to an address it used when it made test purchases for ExpediteTV. DISH went ahead and bought the Mundo TV package on offer and the card was processed by a company with connections to LaBossiere, Beaman, and Gollner.

At some point, when trying to renew a subscription to another service called PingTV (located at uptickrenew.com, also associated with LaBossiere, Beaman, and Gollner), DISH was directed to Must TV and its payment was processed by Mundo TV. This leads DISH to the conclusion that all of these additional services are hidden behind diverse branding to hide the illicit activities of LaBossiere, Beaman, and Gollner.

Violation of Injunction is Contempt of Court

In summary, DISH argues that the court's permanent injunction is "clear, definite, unambiguous, and not susceptible to any interpretation" that would explain why LaBossiere, Beaman, and Gollner failed to comply with the order. They all received actual notice of the injunction and agreed to its terms yet have "repeatedly thumbed their noses at the legal process" and shown "absolute disrespect" to the court.

As a result, DISH is demanding the imposition of a $1,000 coercive daily sanction after a finding of contempt plus attorneys' fees and costs incurred by DISH in bringing its motion.

The related court documents can be found here and here

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: