Sunday, May 8, 2022

TorrentFreak's Latest News

tele
 

Pirate Site Blocking is Making its Way Into Free Trade Agreements
Ernesto Van der Sar, 08 May 10:09 AM

agreementOver the years, copyright holders have tried a multitude of measures to curb online piracy, with varying levels of success.

Site blocking has emerged as one of the preferred solutions. While blocking measures are not bulletproof, the general idea is that they pose a large enough hurdle for casual pirates to choose legal options instead.

The blocking approach was still relatively controversial at the start of the last decade but it's increasingly being normalized. Dozens of countries have legal or procedural options to request blockades today.

Australia and the UK are among the countries that have robust site-blocking legislation in place. ISPs in both countries are required to prevent subscribers from accessing thousands of domain names, with more being added every few months.

Site Blocking in Trade Deal

Rightsholders are happy with these legal remedies and the authorities are pleased as well. In fact, site blocking language has made its way into the draft of a new free trade agreement between Australia and the UK, which is currently being finalized.

The inclusion of a blocking paragraph in the copyright chapter of the trade deal was high on the agenda of various copyright holder groups. Following a series of hearings and consultations, both countries settled on the following text:

1. Each Party shall provide that its civil judicial authorities have the authority to grant an injunction against an ISP within its territory, ordering the ISP to take action to block access to a specific online location, in cases where:

(a) that online location is located outside the territory of that Party; and

(b) the services of the ISP are used by a third party to infringe copyright or related rights in the territory of that Party.

2. For greater certainty, nothing in this Article precludes a Party from providing that its judicial authorities may grant an injunction to take action to block access to online locations used to infringe intellectual property rights in circumstances other than those specified in paragraph 1.

This paragraph doesn't fundamentally change anything for the site-blocking regimes currently in place in the two countries. However, cementing blocking in a trade deal could impact future trade agreements with other nations.

Expanding the Anti-Piracy Toolbox

This hasn't gone unnoticed by the Alliance for Intellectual Property, which represents rightsholder organizations such as the MPA, BPI, and the Premier League. The group repeatedly urged the UK Government to include site-blocking powers in the agreement.

In a recent submission to the UK Government, the Alliance once again stresses the importance of site blocking, while also hinting at broadening the current anti-piracy toolbox.

"It has become a hugely valuable tool in the armoury of rights holders looking to protect their IP. It is vital that the UK Government ensures the preservation of the no-fault injunctive relief regime," the Alliance writes.

"We would also encourage the opening of dialogue, wherever possible, to share experience around UK practices and to encourage faster, more efficient website blocking procedures, whether through civil, criminal, administrative or voluntary means."

Important Message for Future Agreements

The site-blocking language is already included in the latest trade deal draft but the Alliance is also looking ahead at future agreements with other countries. In this context, the blocking paragraph will send a clear message.

"We would therefore urge the UK Government to include reference to the site blocking legislation in the FTA with Australia as it will send an important message to future countries that we might chose [sic] to negotiate trade agreements with."

The Alliance for Intellectual Property doesn't mention any other countries by name. However, it specifically references a report from the U.S. Copyright Office where site blocking was mentioned as a potential future anti-piracy option.

In the same report, the Copyright Office also stressed that further research would be required on the effect and impact of a U.S. site-blocking scheme, but the idea wasn't dismissed outright.

At the moment, the UK is also negotiating a new free trade deal with the US so it wouldn't be a surprise if the blocking issue is raised there. That's definitely something the Alliance for Intellectual Property would like to see, and the MPA and RIAA previously hinted at the same.

This means that, in a way, the trade agreement between Australia and the UK would be used to export site-blocking injunctions to other countries. Whether that will succeed remains a question, for now.

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

IPTV Pirate Agrees to Pay Well Over Half a Billion Dollars in Damages
Andy Maxwell, 07 May 01:01 PM

money pileIn the final season of Breaking Bad, Walt and Skyler White are seen gazing at a huge quantity of banded banknotes representing some of the unlaundered profits of a drug empire.

Neither really knew how much was there. Show creator Vince Gilligan later guessed at perhaps $80 or $95 million, give or take. Small change for Elon Musk perhaps but to most other people, it's an astronomical amount of money.

In the case of a man from Canada, who has just asked a US court to hold him liable for massive damages relating to his sale of pirate IPTV subscriptions, it is not nearly enough. In an ideal world, the pile of cash would be six times bigger.

IPTV Pirate Sued in the United States

Three days before Christmas in 2020, broadcaster DISH Network and technology partner NagraStar got in the festive spirit by filing a lawsuit (with more than 260 exhibits attached) against Canada-resident Carlos Rocha. According to the complaint, Rocha was the controlling operator of SolTV and Stream Solutions, pirate streaming services offering DISH content in breach of the broadcaster's rights.

DISH investigations revealed that Rocha had connections to SET TV, a pirate IPTV service already defeated by DISH via a separate $90 million judgment. Another IPTV service, Simply-TV, was also targeted by DISH and as part of that litigation, the broadcaster uncovered more connections to Rocha.

In addition to operating SolTV and Stream Solutions, DISH said that Rocha trafficked in 'device codes' (IPTV subscriptions) for other branded services including BimoTV, TVStreamsNow, OneStepTV, IbexTV, MagnumStreams, Prime Tyme TV, Lazer TV Streams, Griff TV, Flix Streams, and CantGetEnoughTV.

DISH said that encoded messages in its satellite feeds confirmed the content being offered by the services was theirs and the wrongful conduct constituted mass breaches of the Federal Communications Act (FCA). Demanding damages of $10,000 for each violation of the FCA with the potential to increase by up to $100,000 more, DISH also sought an injunction to bring Rocha's business to an end.

It's been a long wait but this week the case appears to be reaching a jackpot climax.

Defendant Asks Court to Sign $585 Million Judgment

Last week the warring parties submitted a joint notice to the court indicating that following discussion, some kind of agreement had been reached to bring the lawsuit to an end. In typical fashion, the details of the agreement weren't made public but the parties informed the court that additional materials would soon be filed at a Florida district court.

As promised, an agreed motion for entry of judgment and a permanent injunction against Rocha appeared on the docket this week. It states that Rocha operated, participated in, and/or trafficked in device codes and subscriptions for various IPTV services including SolTV, SET TV, Simply-TV, BimoTV, TVStreamsNow, OneStepTV, IbexTV, MagnumStreams, Prime Tyme TV, Lazer TV Streams, Griff TV, Flix Streams, and CantGetEnoughTV.

No details of how many subscriptions Rocha is supposed to have sold are provided. However, it appears that the former IPTV entrepreneur has agreed to be held liable for statutory damages based on "the number of device codes linked to Defendant and/or the Unauthorized Streaming Services." In short – a telephone number-sized judgment.

Describing the final amount agreed by the parties as "conservative", the motion asks the court to hold Rocha liable for statutory damages of $585,028,500 under the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 605(a) and 605(e)(4) and to issue a permanent injunction to prevent any future conduct that might infringe on DISH's rights.

Whether the court will sign off on this record-breaking judgment will become apparent in the coming days but it seems fairly likely that Rocha doesn't have half a billion in cash lying around – even if he does have access to Walter White's storage unit to make up the shortfall. At this point the amount could've been $595 billion – it's still not getting paid.

Knowledge is Power

The requested judgment amount is of course pretty wild, not least since the entire US pirate IPTV market was worth a billion dollars in 2020. But that fails to take into account DISH's anti-piracy strategy and the persuasive effect of mind-boggling damages on those seeking to avoid the same fate.

A common feature of DISH lawsuits against IPTV suppliers and similar entities is how they keep cropping up in subsequent and parallel investigations. The company likes to connect the dots and lawsuits make that possible.

There isn't much public evidence detailing DISH's settlement agreements with pirates. However, when piecing things together it's clear that information obtained by DISH in one area (either through discovery or by defendants getting chatty as part of a settlement agreement) helps to drive new lawsuits and settlement demands against associates and/or former customers in others.

Unsurprisingly, Rocha's agreed injunction requires him to keep hold of all "books, documents, files, records, or communications" plus "the identities of manufacturers, exporters, importers, dealers, or purchasers of such services and devices, or persons" related to his piracy activities.

Whether he still has any records or devices is unknown but if they do exist, there are companies out there who would really appreciate a quick look.

Documents referenced above can be found here (1,2,3,4)

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: