Sunday, July 31, 2022

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

SmoothStreams IPTV Shut Down By MPA/ACE After Secret Legal Process
Andy Maxwell, 30 Jul 03:21 PM

smoothstreamsPirate IPTV services disappear on a regular basis but when SmoothStreams.tv ran into trouble mid-July, there were ominous signs that this wasn't just a regular technical problem.

One early confusion was that not all of SmoothStreams' channels had gone dark and presumably some kind of raid would've ensured a complete shutdown of the platform.

Information obtained from a number of sources pulled us in two directions. One suggested that the service was merely facing a technical hitch related to a specific supplier of streams. Another strongly suggested that SmoothStreams was already stuck in a legal quagmire.

Earlier this week we contacted Lomic Law, a Canadian law firm based in Toronto, asking them to confirm or deny they were representing two people we believed to be the operators of SmoothStreams. We received no response.

When we contacted the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), the anti-piracy group we'd managed to connect to the SmoothStreams shutdown, they initially responded but declined to make a statement.

We can now confirm that SmoothStreams (SSTV) was indeed shut down and that members and affiliates of MPA-Canada (Motion Picture Association Canada) and ACE are those responsible.

Massive Coalition of Companies Take Action

The epicenter of the legal action can be found in Canada so it's no surprise to see Bell Media and Rogers Media heading the list of plaintiffs. Other companies involved in the action include Disney, Paramount, Columbia, Warner Bros., plus two divisions of Universal.

On June 17, 2022, these companies filed a statement of claim against two individuals – Marshall Macciacchera and Antonio Macciacchera (son and father respectively) – plus several companies based in Canada and elsewhere that they allegedly control.

The plaintiffs' claims are straightforward. They allege that Marshall and Antonio are the owners and operators of SmoothStreams.tv and several additional platforms including live247.tv, StreamTVNow.tv and StarStreams.tv. These platforms enabled subscribers to access large volumes of live TV channels and movies, something that infringed the plaintiffs' rights.

Plaintiffs Obtained an Injunction, Anton Piller Order

On the same day their statement of claim was filed, the plaintiffs requested an immediate hearing to obtain an interim injunction to shut SmoothStreams down.

They also sought an Anton Piller order, a special type of court authorization that would allow them to search premises linked to Marshall and Antonio and seize evidence, without having to give any prior warning. The same type of order was previously used against Adam Lackman, the former operator of TVAddons.

Obtained by the plaintiffs late June, an interim order containing an interim injunction prevents Marshall and Antonio from operating any SmoothStreams-affiliated service or similar platform. The order also requires Marshall and Antonio to shut down the entire SmoothStreams system and hand control of its infrastructure to an independent solicitor.

The interim order prohibits SmoothStreams and related entities from disposing of or distributing assets outside Canada. It further requires Marshall and Antonio to authorize banks and other financial entities to hand over details of their assets to the entertainment company plaintiffs.

Two Locations Targeted For Search and Seizure

The defendants were served on July 14, 2022. In Marshall's case, two locations were targeted – his home and a commercial property in Barrie, Ontatio. Antonio was served at his home in Woodbridge, Ontario. Both were informed that any failure to comply with the terms of the order could lead to them being held in contempt of court, an offense carrying a fine or a prison sentence.

Late last week TorrentFreak learned that things didn't go entirely to plan. We understand that those involved in executing the order on behalf of the plaintiffs were present at the locations for at least two days and didn't receive full cooperation from Marshall or Antonio.

After refusing to read the paperwork or give his consent for the court's interim order to be executed, the plaintiffs filed for an order to charge Antonio with contempt. The motion was granted and Antonio is now required to appear in court during August to face that charge.

Marshall's compliance was reportedly mixed and that shines light on why parts of the SmoothStreams service stayed up after the execution of the order.

During the search, the plaintiffs' representatives seized dozens of TV receivers and encoders, plus a number of servers believed to have been used for capturing and redistributing the infringing content available via SmoothStreams. However, when those were disconnected a few dozen streams remained up – and Marshall refused to explain why that was the case.

A Complex Network of Companies and Entities

Those familiar with SmoothStreams will already be aware that subscriptions could be purchased on a number of affiliated websites including Armhosting.ca, Starhosting.me, and Romaworks.co. Our investigations over the past two weeks found that each was operated by a separate corporate entity – Arm Hosting, Inc. (Ontario, Canada), Star Hosting Limited (Hong Kong), Roma Works Limited (Hong Kong), and Roma Works, S.A. (Panama).

An investigation launched in 2018 by MPA-Canada reached the same conclusions but also determined that Marshall holds directorships in Arm Hosting Inc., Star Hosting Limited, and Roma Works Limited.

The alleged SmoothStreams owner did provide the plaintiffs with login details for the ArmHosting.ca payment portal but stonewalled them when questioned about the financial details of both Hong Kong entities. As a result, Marshall was also charged with contempt of court.

During the next handful of days, both Marshall and Antonio are required by law to identify any and all third parties involved in the SmoothStreams operations. An unknown third party gained access to the SmoothStreams system during the execution of the order and there is a suspicion that a person identified as 'Sam' could also be involved.

How Were The SmoothStreams Operators Identified?

As indicated earlier, the plaintiffs have been investigating SmoothStreams for four years, which must have been an extremely expensive operation. There's no doubt that every detail will have been immaculately documented and supported by necessary audit trails, which of course makes things much more laborious.

We have no information on that specific investigation. However, the hard reality is that despite massive efforts to maintain anonymity, the people behind SmoothStreams were not difficult for us to identify over a handful of days using readily available tools. We'll reveal how we did that in an upcoming report.

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

Saturday, July 30, 2022

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Piracy Lawsuit Triggers Dispute Over 'Hollywood Style Quality' of Adult Films
Ernesto Van der Sar, 29 Jul 10:49 PM

director cut hollywoodOver the past several 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.

Many of these cases result in private settlements and are never heard of again. On occasion, however, a defendant decides to push back and a case filed against a "John Doe" at a Florida federal court is now on track to go to trial.

It's quite unique for a 'copyright troll' case to be so heavily litigated. The prospect of a potential jury trial is even rarer but before the case gets that far there are some issues to resolve.

Hollywood Quality?

A few days ago, Strike 3 filed a motion asking the court to exclude an expert report from Mr. David Dickson, one of the defense witnesses. Mr. Dickson is a film director and producer who produced an expert report commenting on several claims made by Strike 3.

The report has little to do with copyright infringement. Instead, it relates to the purported quality of the adult movies, including a quote from the complaint which claims that the films are "produced with a Hollywood style budget and quality."

strike claim

Mr. Dickson counters this claim by pointing out that the budgets of Strike 3's adult films range between $2,000 and $6,000. This is in line with other adult industry productions, but a far cry from the multi-million budgets of mainstream Hollywood productions. The films overall are on a different level too.

"It is fair to say that there is nothing '…high-end, artistic, and performer-inspiring…' about Strike 3 movies or that the Strike 3 movies are '…produced with a Hollywood style budget and quality…'," Dickson says.

Factory Line Production

The report goes on to cite the average wages of porn actors, the size of the film crew, and the originality of the scripts. Mr. Dickson even went as far as creating a table to show how the same location was used to shoot multiple films, which suggests factory line production.

"Unlike movies produced by the same director or the same studio, in these films I found that the same location shot was used in multiple movies. Shooting out of sequence is an industry standard technique but at this scale it suggests a factory line of production," the report reads.

adult locations

Not Original

Mr. Dickson also points out that there is little originality in the productions and doubts that the actions of the actors and actresses in these films are actually copyrightable.

"There is no originality in pornographic movies because the producers have landed on a formula that requires no original and creative input but can be pressed out for the same effect every time," Mr. Dickson writes.

The overall theme of the expert report is that Strike 3's films are not to be compared with Hollywood productions, as the original complaint suggests.

It's not clear how the defendant plans to use this testimony but it could help to show that Strike 3's "Hollywood style" claims are overblown. In addition, it could help mitigate potential damages, if these are awarded.

Strike 3 Disagrees

Needless to say, Strike 3 isn't pleased with this expert report. In a filing submitted a few days ago, the company asks the Florida federal court to exclude the opinions and testimony from the evidence.

The adult entertainment company argues that Mr. Dickson has zero experience in the industry and that this is evident from the opinions and conclusions in the report. As such, he is not qualified to be an expert.

According to Strike 3, the conclusions are wrong as well. For example, a statement referring to "Hollywood industry standards" would merely refer to the picture quality, which is 4K MP4 UHD.

That budgets are not comparable to Hollywood blockbusters is not disputed by Strike 3. However, the company points out that this is in part due to the length, the total number of all cast members, and the number of locations, that drive up the costs of Hollywood productions.

According to the adult entertainment company its content is top of the bill in the industry, as shown by the many XBIZ and AVN awards it has won.

MPA Rating?

The expert report also noted that, unlike Hollywood productions, Strike 3 never attempts to get an MPA rating for its films. However, Strike 3 notes that this would make no sense, as its films clearly aren't intended for children.

"It is nonsensical for Strike 3 to seek ratings from the MPA, since all its works are universally geared towards adults. If anything, this criticism highlights again Mr. Dickson's lack of knowledge of the adult motion picture industry," Strike 3 notes.

The above is just a brief summary of the arguments from both sides and the defendant has yet to respond to Strike 3's motion. However, it is clear that seemingly simple copyright cases can become quite complex.

Summary Judgment

In addition to the motion to exclude the expert report, both sides have also submitted motions for summary judgment in their favor. The court has yet to rule on these motions.

If either side is granted summary judgment there is no longer any need for a trial. At the same time, that would also end the discussion on the Hollywood-type characteristics of Strike 3's films.

A copy of Strike 3's Motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of Mr. Dickson is available here (pdf)

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

Friday, July 29, 2022

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Record Labels and ISP Bright House go to Trial over Pirating Subscribers
Ernesto Van der Sar, 28 Jul 11:32 PM

pirate-flagThree years ago, several of the world's largest music companies including Warner Bros and Sony Music sued Internet Provider Bright House Networks.

The recording labels accused the provider of not doing enough to stop pirating subscribers. Specifically, they alleged that the ISP failed to terminate repeat infringers.

Since the complaint was filed both parties have gone back and forth in court with various arguments and accusations. The legal battle reached the point of going to trial next week but, before that, the court needed to rule on some outstanding issues.

Excluding Evidence From Trial

Specifically, the ISP and music companies both wanted to limit what evidence and arguments the other side can present to the jury. These 'motions in limine' were submitted earlier this month and the court ruled on them in a recent order. In her decision, US District Court Judge Mary Scriven had some good and bad news for both sides.

As mentioned in our previous coverage, the music companies don't want Bright House to argue that Internet access is a human right and that terminating repeat infringers is a disproportionate and unnecessary response to piracy allegations.

The ISP plans to argue that account terminations are only appropriate when a court has confirmed the infringing activity, instead of taking action based on third-party accusations. However, the record labels fear that this line of thought will confuse the jury.

Judge Scriven disagreed and denied the motion, which means that the ISP can argue that terminating people's Internet access over piracy allegations is disproportionate. However, the company can't freely argue that such disconnections are a human rights violation.

This wasn't the only motion to be denied. The music companies also asked for an order that prohibited the ISP from arguing that it's not liable for infringements carried out by people other than the registered subscriber. This request was denied as well. In addition, Bright House is also allowed to use the term "spying" when referring to network management tools.

No Copyright Alert System Ban

Another highly contested issue was whether Bright House can mention the anti-piracy practices of other ISPs. This includes the now-defunct Copyright Alert System (CAS) where record labels and ISPs agreed to a system where subscribers were sent escalating warnings without the requirement for any Internet terminations.

Bright House wants to argue that, if this "industry standard" anti-piracy practice didn't require account terminations, it would be unfair to punish other companies for failing to do so. The music companies disagreed, however, and asked the court to exclude this line of reasoning.

"[Bright House] did not participate in CAS. It would unfairly prejudice Plaintiffs to allow BHN to claim that what some Plaintiffs and other ISPs agreed to in the context of a negotiated compromise supersedes BHN's obligations under U.S. copyright law," the wrote.

Again, Judge Scriven disagreed and denied the record labels' motion. As a result, the ISP can use the Copyright Alert System argument in court.

No Mentions of Price Fixing and Artist Exploitation

There was also some positive news for the music companies. The motion to prohibit mentions of price fixing in the music industry was granted. The same is true for allegations that some smaller artists are being exploited by music companies through terrible contracts.

The Judge denied the 'exploitation' motion with a caveat. If the record labels argue during trial that they are pursuing this case to protect artists, Bright House may reference potential mistreatments.

Bright House also submitted several motions to exclude arguments, several of which were denied. For example, the music companies are allowed to bring up the fact that many subscribers had their accounts terminated after failing to pay their bills.

In addition, the music companies are also allowed to argue that throttling and port blocking can be used to hinder illegal file-sharing traffic, even if that raises net neutrality issues.

Limited Piracy Admissions

Finally, Bright House's motion to prevent the labels from using piracy "admissions" from the ISPs subscribers were granted. Judge Scriven clarified that these can't be used at trial unless they relate to the infringements that are part of this case.

Given the topics at hand and the millions in damages at stake, the upcoming trial will be a crucial one. If everything goes to plan, the outcome will be known in little over two weeks.

Copies of US District Court Judge Scriven's orders on the motions in limine are available here (1,2)

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company