Thursday, December 22, 2022

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

'Someone' Tried to Hijack a Domain Seizure Order, Posing as a Rightsholder
Ernesto Van der Sar, 22 Dec 12:48 PM

mindgeekAdult entertainment conglomerate MindGeek owns several of the largest 'free' tube sites including Pornhub.

In the early days, these sites thrived on pirated content but over time, that changed. Today, MindGeek itself is one of the most protective copyright holders in the industry.

MindGeek subsidiary MG Premium, for example, has many thousands of works registered at the US Copyright Office. To prevent these videos from being shared online without permission, the company regularly takes legal action.

Victory Against DaftSex

In a recent case heard at a federal court in the Western District of Washington, MindGeek won a default judgment against Vasily Kharchenko, the suspected operator of Daftsex.com, Artporn.com, Biqle.com and Daxab.com.

These sites have been a thorn in MindGeek's side for years and MG Premium accused their operator of mass copyright infringement. DaftSex alone was good for dozens of millions of monthly visits.

The adult media company won by default after the defense failed to appear. Kharchenko was ordered to pay more than $32 million in damages and an injunction required domain name registry Verisign to sign over the valuable domain names to MG Premium.

Court Order Hijack Attempt

Apparently, someone had been keeping a close eye on the case. Shortly after the court issued its order, Verisign received an email from an MG Premium imposter trying to seize ownership of the contested domain names.

The identity of the imposter is unknown, but a new court filing MG Premium suggests that it could be Kharchenko's attempt to retain control over the domain names. For as long as it lasts.

"On November 10, 2022, just days after this Court entered the Order of Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction, a fraudulent letter was sent to Verisign, Inc. purportedly from MG Premium requesting Verisign, Inc. to unlock the domains and send authorization codes to mgpremiumltd@gmail.com."

"This is a fake letter, not sent by MG Premium. It is suspected Defendant Kharchenko may have sent this fake letter in an attempt to thwart the Court's Order and the loss of the domains," MG Premium writes.

mindgeek imposter

The bold move ultimately failed, as the real MG Premium was already in touch with Verisign at that point. However, it was clear that someone had tried to hijack the court's order.

Motion for Contempt and Sanctions

MG Premium suspects that DaftSex's operator sent the email. Despite the court order and injunction, the pirate site is not giving up. After the domains were eventually signed over to MG Premium, the sites switched to new domains including Daft.sex, Dsex.to, and Biqle.org.

These new domains were made public through DaftSex's Twitter account and remain in operation today.

daftsex has moved

To address this problem, MG Premium submitted a motion for contempt and sanctions against the site operator. And since more monetary damages aren't going to help, the sanctions should be focused on taking all replacement sites offline. MG Premium also wants the Twitter account suspended.

"The Court must unfortunately look at Defendant Kharchekno as an irresponsible teenager who simply cannot follow simple rules nor show any respect to others, including the rule of law," MG Premium writes.

"To force obedience with the Court's Order, the Court should take away the utilized domains and the Twitter account promoting those domains. There is simply no other way to get this behavior to cease."

The court has yet to rule on this motion but if MG Premium successfully takes over the new domain names, any new hijacking attempts will lack the element of surprise. Even then, MG Premium may have to return to court if DaftSex switches domains again.

A copy of MG Premium's request for a finding of contempt and associated sanctions against Daftsex and its operator Vasily Kharchekno is available here (pdf)

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

Clock Ticking For Call of Duty Cheat Makers Who Took on Activision
Andy Maxwell, 21 Dec 08:45 PM

cod warzoneIn an effort to end or at least reduce rampant cheating in Call of Duty, Activision fought back with RICHOCET Anti-Cheat.

The system reportedly identified and banned 50K cheaters across Warzone and Vanguard during the first day, but also faced stiff opposition from cheat makers determined to undermine it.

Early January 2022, Activision filed a lawsuit against cheat makers EngineOwning UG and CMN Holdings S.A (both German companies), plus six named individuals (Valentin Rick, Leonard Bugla, Leon Frisch, Ignacio Gayduchenko, Marc-Alexander Richts, Alexander Kleeman) and 50 'Doe' defendants.

The defendants faced claims of trafficking in circumvention devices under the DMCA, contract interference, and unfair competition. The situation was aggravated when a lawyer working for Activision claimed he'd been 'trolled' by the defendants, one of whom said they would never be found.

Determined Activision Applies Pressure

In common with similar cases, some of the 'Doe' defendants were known to Activision only by their online handles. The court allowed the gaming company to conduct broad discovery against a number of services, including internet service providers, payment providers, and social media websites, to help put more meat on the bones.

Activision's amended complaint, supported by new information obtained during discovery, was months in the making but is far more substantial than the original.

In addition to the copyright infringement, contract, and unfair competition allegations, the defendants now face claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Two further counts of racketeering (RICO) relate to offenses that allegedly began as early as 2012 and remain ongoing.

owning-racketeering

Previously-named German corporate entities EngineOwning UG and CMN Holdings S.A are now listed alongside Garnatz Enterprise Ltd, a Belize corporation, according to Activision. Previously pseudonymous/anonymous defendants are further named as follows:

Leon Schlender, Erick Pfeifer, Bennet Huch, Zain Jondah, Ricky Szameitat, Marcel Bindemann, Alexander Kleemann, Remo Löffler, Marvin Baotic Neumeyer, Hendrik Smaal, Charlie Wiest, Dennis Reissleich, Tyler Byrd, Simon Masias, Nicholas James Baldwin, Antonio Median, Eemy Cartigny, Pascal Classen, Manuel T. Santiago, Katerina Disdle

Complex Case With Broad Geographical Spread

Activision previously advised the court that it would serve the defendants under the Hague Convention. Several defendants retained counsel in the United States, with Activision noting that others could be found in the United States, Germany, United Kingdom, or the Netherlands.

In a recent order, District Court Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald ruled on a joint stipulation between Activision and defendants Rick, Schlender, Bulga, Kleeman, Richts, Gayduchencko, Frisch, Huch, Classen, Loffler, and EngineOwning UG, that requested more time to respond to the amended complaint.

With the extension granted, the defendants must now respond on or before January 13, 2023. If they move to dismiss, a collective memorandum of not more than 14,000 words will be allowed in support of their motion, with Activision allocated the same for any motion in opposition.

The order applies only to the defendants listed in the order dated December 19, 2022. The remainder will be handled separately or as the court sees fit.

The joint stipulation/order and first amended complaint can be found here (1,2, pdf)

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

U.S. Copyright Office Finds 'Deep Disagreement' on Anti-Piracy Measures
Ernesto Van der Sar, 21 Dec 01:13 PM

blockedFor many years, U.S. lawmakers have considered options to update the DMCA so it can more effectively deal with today's online copyright issues.

Many proposals have come and gone, without resulting in any significant updates. Calls to change current legislation persist, however.

Copyright Office's Review and Conclusions

Following repeated nudges from Senators Thom Tillis and Patrick Leahy, the Copyright Office launched a consultation on automated tools that online services can use to ensure that pirated content is less easily shared.

The Copyright Office also asked stakeholders whether it's desirable to make certain standard technical measures mandatory for online platforms. Such measures could include upload filters to block pirated content from being reuploaded.

This week the Copyright Office presents its conclusions, which are also shared with Senators Tillis and Leahy in two letters. After reviewing thousands of responses and input from stakeholders in plenary sessions, the overall conclusion is one of clear disagreement.

Voluntary Technical Measures

With thousands of responses, the feedback the Office received on voluntary technical measures was overwhelming.

Most parties agree that it's impossible to design an error-free takedown process but disagree on what error rate is acceptable when takedowns are automated.

Opponents of filtering technology warn that fair use and First Amendment rights are at stake. Rightsholders did not dispute that but noted that these issues don't play a role when full copies of copyrighted content are shared.

When it comes to the implementation of voluntary measures, the Copyright Office doesn't have any concrete suggestions. Instead, it will continue to back existing initiatives, while facilitating dialogue between various stakeholders.

"The public comments and the consultations confirmed that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach to voluntary technical measures, and that there remains a lack of consensus in this area," the Office writes.

"Nevertheless, the consultations served as valuable opportunities for dialogue among stakeholders, which may lead to further voluntary action. The Copyright Office proposed options to continue its role as convener of these conversations in the future."

Mandatory Technical Measures

The Copyright Office also reviewed the option to expand the DMCA by making certain copyright protection measures mandatory. These could include upload filters that prevent pirated content from being reuploaded.

As expected, many rightsholders are in favor of far-reaching, government-backed anti-piracy measures. On the other side, tech companies and the public at large warn against the potential negative consequences, including the potential impact on freedom of expression.

The current DMCA already provides an option to formally adopt standard measures but that requires "broad consensus" among online services, which hasn't been reached over the past two decades. Instead, many online platforms have developed their own in-house tools, such as YouTube's Content ID system.

Many copyright holders expressed their frustration with the current status quo and would like the Government to step in. The Copyright Office is more cautious, however.

"While the comments share some common themes, we found a lack of consensus on the value of STMs and deep disagreement about proposals for legislative or regulatory action," the Office writes in its letter to the Senators.

On the one hand, copyright holders argued that Government pressure could help to overcome the lack of cooperation from online platforms. However, there are serious concerns about the impact of 'upload filters' on freedom of expression.

"[M]any described technical measures that automatically take down or prevent the upload of purportedly infringing works as especially worrisome, as technology is not yet capable of accurately identifying fair use, public domain status, or even licensed uses," the Office writes.

Tweaking the DMCA

All in all, the consultation elicited strong arguments, both for and against more sweeping changes. However, the Office prefers not to take drastic measures and suggests tweaking the current DMCA instead.

Updating the definition of "standard technical measures" should help to facilitate the implementation of these tools going forward.

"Specifically, the Office recommends that Congress amend section 512(i) to 1) clarify that the terms 'broad consensus' and 'multi-industry' require the support only of the industries directly affected by an STM; 2) state that technical measures qualify as STMs if they are recognized as such by a broad consensus of copyright owners and service providers […] and 3) set forth a list of factors use in weighing whether a particular measure imposes substantial costs and burdens."

Whether Senators Tillis and Leahy will follow these recommendations remains to be seen. They previously suggested a more far-reaching proposal in the form of the SMART Copyright Act of 2022.

The Copyright Office's letters to the Senators are available here (VTM / STM)

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: