TorrentFreak's Latest News

Publishers' Lawsuit Accuses Libgen of "Staggering" Copyright InfringementAndy Maxwell, 15 Sep 11:34 AM With two alleged operators of Z-Library curre

Publishers' Lawsuit Accuses Libgen of "Staggering" Copyright Infringement Andy Maxwell, 15 Sep 11:34 AM With two alleged operators of Z-Library currently defending a criminal lawsuit filed by the U.S. government, another of the world's most recognized book piracy platforms has fresh legal problems of its own. Library Genesis was founded in Russia around 2008, mostly offering local language scientific textbooks. After reportedly adding around 500,000 predominantly English-language books courtesy of Library.nu, 'Libgen' archives received another huge boost with the addition of content made available by Sci-Hub founder Alexandra Elbakyan. Majors Publishers File Copyright Complaint Against Libgen According to a copyright lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York late Thursday, Libgen's collection of infringing works now consists of over six million files. At least 20,000 of those files were published by plaintiffs Cengage Learning, Inc., Bedford, Freeman & Worth Publishing Group, LLC (d/b/a Macmillan Learning, McGraw Hill LLC, and Pearson Education, Inc.) and distributed by Libgen without authorization. "Each year, Plaintiffs publish tens of thousands of academic works, including higher education textbooks, which serve as the basis for thousands of courses in universities and colleges across the United States and are among the most popular and widely used titles in their fields," the publishers' complaint begins. "Defendants operate one of the largest, most notorious, and far-reaching infringement operations in the world. 'Library Genesis,' or 'Libgen' for short, is a group of pirate websites through which a vast array of written material is illegally copied and distributed online without any authorization, and with no remuneration to copyright holders." Defendants in the case include DOES 1 – 50 (d/b/a Library Genesis), 'bookwarrior', plus a list of Libgen owned or utilized domains including cdn1.booksdl.org, jlibgen.tk, libgen.ee, libgen.fun, libgen.gs, libgen.is, libgen.lc, libgen.li, libgen.pm, libgen.rocks, libgen.rs, libgen.space, libgen.st, libgen.su, library.lol, and llhlf.com. "Operating as an illegal 'shadow library,' Libgen enables users to download, for free, fiction and non-fiction books (among other types of works), including educational textbooks, instead of buying or renting lawful copies or checking them out from a legitimate library. Defendants have absolutely no legal justification for what they do and operate in complete and knowing defiance of the rule of law," the complaint adds. The publishers claim that the Libgen defendants intentionally hide their identities using pseudonyms such as 'bookwarrior' and 'librarian.' They also use online proxy services that conceal their identities while failing to provide any business addresses as contact information. Libgen is Hardened to Maintain "Staggering Infringement" Highlighting the numerous and shifting domain names through which Libgen can be accessed, the publishers' complaint states Libgen's operators have built in "multiple redundancies" to ensure that huge volumes of infringing content remain accessible. "For instance, users can download infringing files from Libgen directly or through Interplanetary File Sharing ('IPFS') gateways that purport to facilitate faster and safer downloads and are operated by companies based in the United States," the complaint notes. "The current IPFS gateway companies include Cloudflare, Protocol Labs (which operates IPFS.io), and Pinata, which are all based in the United States." "The scale of Defendants' infringement is staggering. Libgen maintains an enormous collection of infringing works that anyone with an internet connection can access. "This collection consists of over 6 million files that include illegal copies of works from a diverse cross-section of the publishing industry. For Plaintiffs alone, Libgen has over 20,000 files published by Plaintiffs – none of which Plaintiffs authorized Defendants to copy or distribute." Not a Library, Free Access to Education "Just a Ruse" In common with similar sites offering broadly similar services, Libgen's stated aim is the "[c]ollection, systematization and distribution of scientific, technical and educational literature on a free and open basis." The publishers dismiss this as "just a ruse" to account for a "massive piracy effort" that runs counter to the stated aim of copyright law. "[T]he Sites undermine the very purpose of U.S. copyright law to 'promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors . . . the exclusive right to their respective writings," the complaint states. While Libgen and similar sites are often referred to as shadow libraries, the publishers' complaint seeks to highlight the differences between these platforms and authorized libraries. Instead of acquiring works through channels that acknowledge and compensate the efforts of publishers and authors (i.e entities sanctioned by publishers), shadow libraries "take what is not theirs and share it widely so others can do the same." Libgen Causes "Financial and Creative Harm" The complaint says that Libgen's activities "cause serious financial and creative harm" to the plaintiffs while depriving authors of income from their creative works. By offering content for free, Libgen reportedly devalues the textbook market and according to the publishers, may even cause certain works to cease being published. A list of 'plaintiffs authentic works' is provided as an attachment to the complaint. It lists 200 textbooks allegedly made available by Libgen in violation of the publishers' rights. Some allegdly-infringed works (full list below) "Without Court intervention, Defendants will continue operating the Libgen Sites, causing still further harm to copyright holders, including Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this action for injunctive relief and damages to stop and seek redress for Defendants' knowing and willful copyright infringement." Defendants Unknown, Locations Unknown The publishers' complaint indicates that the identities of the people behind Libgen are currently unknown. Their locations are also unknown at this point, but the publishers mention "foreign locations" as the most likely candidates. Despite these difficulties, the plaintiffs claim the court has personal jurisdiction due to the Libgen sites being accessible in the United States and providing infringing copies to users in the United States "which make up a significant percentage of all visitors." SimilarWeb data for just one Libgen domain (libgen.is) shows almost 21% of visitors hail from the U.S. while runner-up India accounts for 7.9%. The plaintiffs say that from March through May 2023, the Libgen sites collectively received an average of nine million visitors per month from the United States. The publishers further note that several of the Libgen domains identify a "copyright agent" that purportedly facilitates notice-and-takedowns under the DMCA. More broadly the sites rely on U.S. companies to stay online including Namecheap (domains), Cloudflare (reverse proxy), and Google for 'search engine services." The sites also receive donations in Bitcoin and Monero with the amount collected by one of the sites since January 1, 2023, reported as $182,540. Copyright Infringement (17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.) The plaintiffs state that copying and/or distributing unauthorized copies of their works, constitutes infringement under 17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1) and 106(3). They demand either actual or statutory damages for willful copyright infringement which in theory could reach $30,000,000. They further request an injunction to restrain ongoing infringement, an order requiring Libgen to "deliver up for destruction" all infringing copies along with all devices used to create distribute or store them, and an order to take control of Libgen domains or have them rendered inaccessible. After being sued by publisher Elsevier in 2015 at the same court, Libgen and the infamous Sci-Hub were ordered to shut down. While Libgen briefly disappeared, both sites ultimately ignored the decision. The complaint and list of allegedly-infringed textbooks are available here (1,2, pdf) Image Credits: congerdesign/LubosHouska/Pixabay From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. 'Home Confined' Z-Library Defendants Deny They Are Fugitives Ernesto Van der Sar, 14 Sep 01:28 PM Last fall, the U.S. Government temporarily took down Z-Library, one of the largest book piracy operations in the world. The feds seized the site's main domain names and arrested two alleged Russian operators of the site, who now find themselves at the center of a criminal investigation. This enforcement action came as a shock to millions of Z-Library users but the shadow library eventually recovered and remains online today. That doesn't mean that the two alleged operators are in the clear, however. 'Home Confined' Defendants Face Extradition The United States is determined to extradite the defendants so they can be brought to justice there. According to the Department of Justice, the duo played a key role in the shadow library's operation, which ultimately caused significant damage to authors and publishers. Over the past few days, several new details have emerged on the extradition efforts. According to court records, both defendants were released from prison in January, after the Cordoba Federal Court in Argentina ruled that 'home' confinement at a local rental apartment is sufficient at this stage. The same court also reviewed the extradition request in April and came to the conclusion that it was deficient. The court requested U.S. officials to provide more details on the alleged criminal actions and their victims but the information was never produced. Instead, the extradition was approved a few weeks later, after the appellate court substituted the judge in charge. The extradition hasn't been enforced thus far, however, as there is an appeal pending. 'Not Fugitives' In addition to the extradition battle in Argentina, Anton Napolsky and Valeriia Ermakova also responded to the criminal allegations in the New York federal court. The defendants submitted a motion to dismiss arguing, among other things, that the copyright infringement claims are deficient. The U.S. prosecution opposed this motion. Besides disagreeing on the merits, United States Attorney Breon Peace argued that the defendants' request should be denied because they are officially fugitives. "The defendants are fugitives who have chosen to avoid the reach of this Court by remaining in Argentina. Until they submit to the jurisdiction of the United States, they have no ability to compel this Court to consider the present Motion—or any type of motion," Peace wrote. This week, the defendants responded with a different take on the matter. According to their attorneys, the term fugitive doesn't apply here. A traditional fugitive is someone who flees from the jurisdiction after committing a crime to hide from justice. In this case, the defendants were tourists in Argentina; they didn't travel there to escape justice. "Defendants were not in the United States at any time relevant to the Indictment and have never resided in this country. Contrary to the Government's insinuations, at the time of their arrest they were not hiding in a remote region in Argentina, but traveling as tourists. "Defendants are Russian nationals. Had they desired to hide from justice, they would have stayed in their native Russia, a country with no extradition treaty with the United States," the attorneys add. The fugitive status is important in this case, as people who flee from a jurisdiction may not be able to file a motion to dismiss. The defense argues that this argument shouldn't apply here. 'No U.S. Servers' Continuing to the merits of the copyright infringement allegations, the defense stresses that there is no evidence that Napolsky and Ermakova used U.S.-based servers to store any copyrighted materials. They didn't own any servers in the U.S. either. "There is not a single allegation in the Superseding Indictment or the Complaint that Defendants indeed used servers located in the United States to store infringed copies of copyrighted materials," the attorneys write. The defendants did use Gmail and Amazon to collect donations. However, the defense notes that these companies previously operated in Russia too, and that their use of these services isn't sufficient to establish jurisdiction. If that logic did indeed apply, people could be subjected to the jurisdiction of a Chinese court if they make a Zoom call, the attorneys note. "Mere use of Gmail or making purchases on Russian Amazon by Defendants are insufficient to establish U.S. domestic activity. For example, Zoom has data centers in China, and some U.S. calls used to be processed through a Chinese server. "Finding domestic activity based on inadvertent transmission to servers in another country by third-party internet services providers would mean that a person engages in domestic activity in China when making that Zoom call." Anyone who uses the Internet will automatically have their traffic routed through multiple countries, according to the defense. To establish jurisdiction, there should be more substantial claims that Gmail and Amazon reference, the response argues. What Works? The prosecution further stresses that the indictment doesn't list any copyrighted works the Z-Library defendants have allegedly infringed. In other words, there are no concrete pirated works listed. This is another shortcoming that warrants a dismissal. The Government argued that it doesn't have to detail any concrete infringements at this point, but that conclusion is wrong, according to the defense attorneys. Based on these and a variety of other arguments, Napolsky and Ermakova ask the New York federal court to dismiss the Superseding Indictment. If that happens, the extradition proceeding will be moot too. — A copy of Napolsky and Ermakova's joint reply to the U.S. opposition, in support of their motion to dismiss, is available here (pdf) From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. Are you looking for a VPN service? TorrentFreak sponsor NordVPN has some excellent offers. ©2023 TorrentFreak | Office 21338 PO Box 4336 Manchester, North West M61 0BW United Kingdom Web Version   Preferences   Forward   Unsubscribe     Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company