Friday, September 1, 2023

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

YouTube Defeats Mexican Movie Tycoon's Piracy Lawsuit
Ernesto Van der Sar, 01 Sep 10:34 AM

YouTubeTwo years ago, Spanish-born movie tycoon Carlos Vasallo sued YouTube at a Florida federal court over various piracy-related claims.

The actor and producer owns the rights to the world's largest collection of Mexican and Latin American movies, many of which are illegally shared on YouTube.

The lawsuit accused YouTube of not doing enough to stop people from uploading pirated copies of Vasallo's content. Those allegations aren't new, but the movie tycoon also said that YouTube would not allow him to join the Content ID copyright protection program unless he agreed to specific terms, including a revenue share agreement.

Vasallo refused these terms and chose to send standard DMCA notices instead. YouTube processed them, as it should, but the movie tycoon complained that this did little to stop pirates. New copies were constantly uploaded and banned users reportedly returned under new aliases.

Motions of Summary Judgment

YouTube and Google vehemently disagreed with the copyright infringement allegations and filed a motion to dismiss. This was partially successful as the Florida federal court dropped the antitrust claims, but the infringement allegations remained.

As the case progressed, both parties submitted motions for summary judgment, which were filed under seal.

The movie tycoon claimed that since YouTube only took down reported videos but failed to use its piracy filtering technology to find and voluntarily remove similar videos, the platform could be held liable for direct and secondary copyright infringement.

YouTube also submitted a motion for summary judgment to establish that it does nothing wrong. According to the company, the DMCA doesn't require platforms to proactively monitor uploads. Also, the movie tycoon failed to provide any evidence that YouTube was aware of 'non reported' infringing videos.

Both motions for summary judgment eventually landed on the desk of Magistrate Judge Edwin Torres. In a detailed report and recommendations, the Judge sided with YouTube concluding that, since the movie tycoon has no triable case, the lawsuit should be closed.

YouTube Defeats Piracy Accusations

This week, U.S. District Court Judge Darrin Gayles issued a final order in the case. After reviewing all available evidence, including the movie tycoon's objections to the report and recommendations, the Judge decided to grant YouTube's motion for summary judgment.

"The Court agrees with Judge Torres' well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment be denied, and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be granted," Judge Gayles writes.

athos youtube

The final judgment is an important win for YouTube. It essentially confirms that the processes and policies used by the company are in accordance with the law.

Under the DMCA, platforms such as YouTube are required to respond to takedown requests. In this case, there is little doubt that the video platform did just that. However, the movie tycoon argued that it should have used its piracy filtering technology to proactively find similar videos and remove those as well.

The court, however, concluded that YouTube is not required to do so. The DMCA makes it clear that online platforms have to respond to takedown notices, but piracy filters are not mandatory.

Protected by the DMCA's Safe Harbor

No matter how the movie tycoon presented his case, he eventually ran "headlong against a brick wall erected by the DMCA," Judge Torres wrote in his recommendations. The DMCA simply doesn't require YouTube to remove content that isn't specifically identified.

In addition, the court found no evidence that YouTube or its employees were aware of any non-reported infringing activity. Neither does anything suggest that YouTube could control the infringing activity it wasn't aware of, or that it specifically profited from the alleged infringements.

District Court Judge Gayles agrees with these conclusions. By granting YouTube and Google's motion for summary judgment, the court establishes that the video platform is protected by the DMCA's safe harbor. At the same time, the movie tycoon's motion for summary judgment is denied.

This is a key victory for YouTube. Not only does it confirm that YouTube acts completely in accordance with the law, but it also saves the company from potential statutory damages that could add up to more than $100 million.

A copy of U.S. District Court Judge Darrin Gayles' order, adopting the report and recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Edwin Torres, is available here (pdf)

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

Govts. Must 'Encourage or Compel' Internet Companies to Fight Piracy
Andy Maxwell, 31 Aug 07:46 PM

usptoTo address counterfeiting and piracy, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) invited submissions from the private sector detailing effective anti-piracy strategies and those envisioned for the future.

In advance of a roundtable scheduled for October 3, submissions from rightsholders and their representatives have called for pirate site blocking in the United States and amendments to the DMCA that would allow for instant blocking of pirate streams.

Big Coalition

The International Intellectual Property Alliance is a coalition of already powerful trade associations, including the Motion Picture Association, Recording Industry Association of America, Entertainment Software Association, Independent Film & Television Alliance, and the Association of American Publishers. IIPA aims to improve copyright protection and enforcement in overseas markets with high levels of piracy.

The IIPA's submission begins by painting a picture of creativity and productivity in the United States versus an "entrenchment of infringing services" in foreign markets. IIPA says that online piracy harms the creative industries in the United States, causes hardships for U.S. creators, undermines exports of legal content, which in turn impacts returning revenue.

The coalition cites numerous studies dating back to 2013 that have concluded, to a greater or lesser extent, that piracy reduces legitimate sales. The numbers are huge; over $29 billion in lost revenue for movies and TV shows alone each year, plus the loss of up to 560,000 jobs.

While the first figure is straight from a Hollywood study and the second could also be 'just' half of that, the numbers are still big. The main point is that IIPA members are huge contributors to the United States and in order for that to continue and grow, significant changes are required at the international level.

'Notorious Markets' Should Be Dismantled

Each year the United States Trade Representative receives submissions from rightsholders that detail overseas sites and services causing significant problems for rightsholders. After consideration, the USTR produces a 'notorious markets' report which lists the piracy platforms and attributes them to specific countries.

The general idea is for those countries to recognize how relations with the United States might improve if those platforms were no longer in business, and then act accordingly. 'Notorious markets' have been taken down over the years but the IIPA sounds keen to see additional positive action, especially when criminal syndicates are involved.

"There have been many successes with the closure of Internet sites and services identified as notorious markets by USTR. IIPA's long-standing recommendation is that USTR should urge trading partners either to convert sites and services to licensed disseminators of works and recordings, or these notorious markets should be taken down followed by, where appropriate, criminal enforcement actions," IIPA writes.

Create an Effective Legal Framework

This request is supported by significant detail on what the IIPA would like to see changed, but isn't explicit on the problem it needs to mitigate or why it can't be handled under existing law. Where the issue is being encountered is loosely linked to cyberlocker-type sites based in Russia, but the problem is clearly more widespread.

Taking the section as a whole, it appears that copyright enforcement measures are frustrated when pirate sites and/or their service providers present as being in compliance with the law and keep up the charade to stay in business.

"Some services, including some clearly pirate services, attempt to rely on notice and takedown procedures to avoid proper copyright licensing," IIPA notes. "Clear primary and secondary liability rules are necessary to discourage abuses and to avoid inaction or license evasion."

What the IIPA seems to want are acknowledged bright lines on conduct that remove any ability to claim compliance when services are obviously infringing, sometimes criminally so. In turn, this would allow rightsholders to lean on intermediaries with a credible discussion on secondary liability, thus gaining their voluntary cooperation – or else.

The goal is a legal framework that: (i) prevents the operation of services that promote or otherwise induce infringement; (ii) criminalizes online infringement (particularly all 'commercial scale' piracy, in line with best practices); and (iii) provides strong incentives for neutral intermediaries to work with rights holders to curb the use of their proprietary networks and services for infringing purposes

Within the framework, IIPA's members would have their exclusive rights respected, including those that relate to technical protection measures. As for internet service providers, bright lines should govern their behavior too.

ISP Liability Limitations….Should Be Limited

According to the submission, the proposed legal framework should ensure that ISP liability limitations (if there are any at all) should not "reduce the scope of substantive copyright protections" and should only be available to ISPs that meet eligibility criteria.

For example, upon an ISP "obtaining knowledge or awareness" of infringing activity, the allegedly-infringing content should be removed "expeditiously" before the ISP takes further action using "measures demonstrated effective" to prevent or restrain further infringement. That sounds not dissimilar to current understanding of the law in many developed countries, with the filtering requirements of the EU's Article 17 bolted on top.

Within the framework, IIPA says that governments should recognize online piracy as a form of cybercrime, foster cooperation among all industry stakeholders (including ISPs) in the online supply chain, and if there are any impediments to collaboration, remove them.

"[G]overnments should encourage private sector agreements, especially those that provide enforcement rights, to properly reflect the needs of industry stakeholders, and that any remedies outside of a legal framework are available to all copyright owners," the submission reads.

"In addition, governments should require marketplaces and encourage all relevant intermediaries to implement 'know your business customers' (KYBC) policies to ensure they keep up to date and accurate information about their customers and to allow rights holders to obtain accurate information to protect their rights against direct infringers."

ICANN and Cloudflare (probably)

Difficulties linking domain names to individuals have persisted for several years. The IIPA's submission places the blame at the feet of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The coalition makes no suggestions on what should be done but its statements leave no real doubt.

The lack of meaningful access to accurate domain registrant data occurs because of ICANN's "failure to meaningfully enforce a requirement for accurate registrant data collection, (ii) ICANN's failure to implement approved policies concerning privacy/proxy services, and (iii) ICANN's overinterpretation of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which has almost entirely shut down access to registrant WHOIS data."

Despite being a coalition interested in reducing infringement overseas, IIPA's submission finds itself referencing a problem that is overwhelmingly seen in the United States and has already been mentioned in several anti-piracy reports; reverse proxy services and the layer of anonymity they provide.

IIPA doesn't mention Cloudflare by name but on the basis that most significant pirate sites do indeed use Cloudflare, it's safe to assume we're talking about the American company with the same name. In any event, IIPA is calling for the U.S. government to get involved.

"While reverse proxy services serve a legitimate purpose, many pirate sites utilize reverse proxy services to hide true hosting information and to transmit large files faster. Such uses make enforcement against these sites extremely challenging. IIPA requests that the U.S. government include reverse proxy services in its efforts to address this widespread, systemic problem and to stop the misuse of such services."

The IIPA's submission is available here (pdf)

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

270x90-blue

Are you looking for a VPN service? TorrentFreak sponsor NordVPN has some excellent offers.

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: