Friday, December 15, 2023

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Pirate IPTV Service Glo TV Faces $25m Lawsuit, Resellers' Feet Held to the Fire
Andy Maxwell, 15 Dec 09:56 AM

flaming tv-sWhen U.S. broadcaster DISH Network files another new lawsuit in the U.S., targeting various players in the IPTV ecosystem, the company maintains a long tradition of legal action that aims high and goes in hard.

While DISH headlines all of these lawsuits with various appearances from Nagra and subsidiary Sling TV, behind the scenes DISH receives support from fellow members of IBCAP, the International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy. From monitoring and detection, content watermarking, DMCA takedown notices, to full-blown investigations, many tasks are handled under the anti-piracy group's umbrella – and inside the IBCAP lab.

We'll take two, no need to erase any drivesIBCAP lab

Retailer, Wholesaler, 'Manufacturer', DISH Likes to Meet Them All

A legal tactic less commonly seen elsewhere sees DISH target U.S.-based retail outlets that resell pirate IPTV subscriptions (and/or pre-configured set-top boxes) offering content to which DISH holds U.S. rights. Small or large, these entities receive the same treatment in original complaints, with a minimum seven-figure damages claims to ponder.

As DISH works to track down anonymous operators, of mostly overseas IPTV services being resold in the U.S., offers of information from various parties are rumored to put the plaintiffs in a better mood. Whether that will apply to defendants Massive Wireless, Inc., Khaled Akhtar, Rays IPTV LLC, and Mumyazur Rehman Daud, as DISH strives to identify Does 1-10, currently d/b/a as Glo TV, is unknown and likely to stay that way.

Lawsuit Filed In New York District Court

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Wednesday, the complaint speaks of a global pirate IPTV service variously branded as Glo TV, Rays IPTV, and Rays TV. Does 1-10 are described as the infringing IPTV service's operators, who knowingly and unlawfully transmit, and publicly perform in the United States, TV channels for which DISH holds or held an exclusive license.

"Illegal streaming services are able to offer consumers thousands of television channels at a fraction of the cost of legal providers such as DISH, because they do not pay fees to license the content they deliver," the complaint notes.

"For example, Defendants Rays IPTV LLC and Daud market the Infringing Service to the public by promising 'No More Expensive Cable Bills,' and targeting consumers 'tired of paying too many bills for too little channels.'"

DISH says the 'direct infringers' behind the service deliver it via servers located all around the world, which are regularly moved to avoid enforcement measures. DISH is yet to identify the direct infringers but believes they're located overseas.

Relationship Between Direct and Secondary Infringers

"Without authorization from DISH, the Direct Infringers take broadcasts of these copyrighted works soon after the original, authorized transmissions, transfer them to one or more computer servers under their control, and then transmit them to Service Users through the Infringing Service using OTT delivery," DISH explains.

"The Direct Infringers carry and market the Infringing Service in two ways: by making the Infringing Service available to retail stores for resale to Service Users; and directly to individual Service Users. In other words, the Direct Infringers are both wholesalers and retailers of the Infringing Service."

DISH alleges that New York resident Khaled Akhtar is the CEO of Massive Wireless, Inc., a company doing business at an address in Jackson Heights, New York. California resident Mumyazur Rehman Daud is described as the CEO of Rays IPTV LLC, a company doing business in Ramona, California.

"Defendants Daud and Rays IPTV LLC (together 'Rays') sell and market the Infringing Service directly to Service Users through websites and by telephone. Rays also sells [set-top boxes] preloaded with the Infringing Service to other retailers (including Massive Wireless).

"Rays markets and brands the Infringing Service as, alternatively, Glo TV, Rays IPTV, and Rays TV. Though Rays sometimes rebrands the Infringing Service using different names, testing conducted by DISH investigators confirms that, since Glo TV and Rays IPTV/TV
direct to the same authentication/authorization server, they are simply different brand names for the exact same service: the Infringing Service."

The complaint alleges that Rays sold access to the IPTV service via Raysiptv.com, with a one-month subscription costing roughly $65 and a 12-month subscription around $305. The same service was also promoted on Dauditl.com

Warnings Ignored

In August 2017, a DISH investigator is said to have visited Massive Wireless's retail store to confirm sales of other infringing services carrying DISH content. DISH followed up with an infringement notice on August 23, 2017, supported by copies of judgments and permanent injunctions previously obtained by the company.

A second infringement notice was sent on July 27, 2021, in broadly similar circumstances. In both cases DISH instructed Massive Wireless to cease-and-desist and both times DISH was ignored.

In March 2023, a DISH investigator visited the same Massive Wireless store and when offered a 12-month subscription for $240, purchased one, and was given a receipt.

Massive Wireless receipt

A third infringement notice sent to Massive Wireless on May 5, 2023, performed as well as the two sent previously. Another visit to the retail store in June 2023 allowed the investigator to confirm continued sales of the infringing service through the purchase of a pre-loaded Rays TV-branded set-top box for $260, for which a receipt was also supplied. Three further infringement notices were ignored in July and August 2023, and sales continued in September.

Copyright Infringement Claims

In respect of Does 1-10, DISH alleges willful, malicious, intentional, and purposeful direct infringement and asks the Court to issue an injunction to curtail ongoing infringement. DISH says the secondary infringers' conduct amounts to willful, malicious, intentional, and purposeful contributory copyright infringement and vicarious copyright infringement. The direct infringers and secondary infringers should be similarly restrained, the complaint adds.

A statement issued by IBCAP lays out the potential consequences for the defendants and the scope of the requested injunction.

  • An award of the defendants' profits attributable to the infringement of the unregistered works
  • An injunction prohibiting any hosting company from supporting Glo TV or any other service used to access channels exclusively licensed to the rightsholder
  • An injunction prohibiting the defendants from distributing, providing, promoting, or selling set-top boxes and services that contain the relevant channels listed in the lawsuit
  • An injunction prohibiting the defendants from distributing, providing, promoting, or selling set-top boxes and services that contain the subject channels
  • An order permanently transferring each domain name that the defendants used in connection with the infringement to the plaintiff
  • Prejudgment interest and post judgment interest
  • Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
  • Statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work for the willful infringement of 170 registered works – up to $25,500,000 total

Chris Kuelling, executive director of IBCAP, says the lawsuit sends a "direct message" to the entire business chain involved in piracy.

"From those who operate pirate services, to the distributors who wholesale pirate subscriptions, to the retailers who purchase and resell pirate subscriptions to consumers, the sale of pirate services will not be tolerated," Kuelling says.

"As with other cases coordinated by IBCAP, we fully expect these defendants will be held accountable, and the Court will enjoin retailers, wholesalers, and others from supporting the Glo TV service."

The complaint is available here (pdf)

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

Pirate Site Blocking Demands Intensify as U.S. Lawmakers Get Fmovies Walkthrough
Ernesto Van der Sar, 14 Dec 07:28 PM

fmoviesFor a long time, pirate site blocking was considered a topic most U.S. politicians would rather avoid.

This stance was a remnant of the SOPA defeat, which drove copyright holders to focus on blocking efforts in other countries instead, and not without success.

Those challenging times are now more than a decade old, and momentum is shifting. After more than forty countries around the world instituted site-blocking measures, including in Canada, U.S. lawmakers may be more receptive to revisiting this topic.

House Committee Hearing on Piracy

Yesterday, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet held a hearing on Digital Copyright Piracy. Specifically, lawmakers were interested to learn about the scope of the problem and the solutions available today.

The representatives heard testimony from four witnesses. Rightsholders were represented by MPA's Karyn Temple, UFC's Riché McKnight, and award-winning producer Richard Gladstein. On the other side, CCIA's Matthew Schruers defended the interests of Internet services.

From the start, it was clear that lawmakers see piracy as a serious problem that requires solutions. U.S. Representative and committee chairman, Darrell Issa, started the hearing by presenting an overview of today's challenges, from a global perspective.

Pirates are 'Hosted' on Russian Military Bases

The committee chairman notes that piracy has evolved from back-alley sales of DVDs to international criminal operations. He specifically mentioned the Vietnamese-operated streaming site Fmovies, while Russian military bases also play a role.

"Many of these pirate websites like Fmovies are hosted on servers that exist outside the United States, currently outside our ability to take them down. This creates unique judicial challenges for enforcement against widespread piracy on such websites.

"In some cases, these websites are even hosted within foreign governments, like the Russian government on military bases, and other enemies of the United States," Rep. Issa adds.

The Russian reference is interesting as the country has some of the most strict anti-piracy laws in the world today. Throughout the hearing, there was no further mention of the Russian military bases, but the comment may refer to optical disc piracy that took place nearly 30 years ago.

Fmovies, on the other hand, remained front and center at the House hearing.

Lawmakers get Fmovies Walkthrough

With over 160 million monthly visits, Fmovies is one of the most notorious pirate streaming sites. The portal recently rebranded to Fmoviesz but the modus operandi remains the same; people can watch whatever they want, whenever they like, without paying a dime.

MPA's Senior Executive Vice President, Karyn Temple, illustrated the problem by giving a live demonstration of the website at the hearing.

"Anyone can simply type the Fmovies URL into their favorite browser today and an extremely professional and legitimate-looking site pops up. You can literally scroll through thousands of movies and television shows including this year's Blockbusters and even movies that have not yet hit theaters.

"You'll see all of our top-rated Blockbusters and popular films. Here you see coming up Wonka, which won't be out in the United States theaters until this Friday," Temple said while browsing through the site.

Fmoviesz Demonstration

Temple points out that most of the site's visitors come from the United States. The MPA tried to take action against the site and encouraged the U.S. Department of Justice to help out but, since Fmovies' operators are in Vietnam and its servers are in Bulgaria, options are limited.

'U.S. Needs Pirate Site Blocking'

Several MPA representatives visited Vietnam earlier this year but that hasn't resulted in concrete enforcement actions either. This means that blocking the site through ISPs, as many other countries do, is one of the only viable options at the moment.

"If we had site blocking in the United States, as we do in the 16 other countries where versions of this site have been blocked already, then this piracy site's U.S. traffic would have plummeted, protecting us consumers and the US creative sector, while removing the financial incentives for piracy," Temple said.

"It's beyond time for Congress to revisit no-fault injunctive relief to combat blatant forms of piracy."

Why Are ISPs Not Blocking Fmovies Today?

The call for site blocking is supported by other creative industry witnesses, who all describe it as an effective anti-piracy tool. CCIA President Matthew Schruers, whose organization represents several Internet services, was the hearing's sole dissenting voice in respect of blocking.

"The blunt instrument of architectural regulation is particularly inappropriate for policing subject matter like copyright," Schruers informed the committee.

"There exists a long history of site-blocking injunctions leading to overreach. This includes examples of overblocking restricting access to thousands of websites, without evidence or process. It is simply not possible to craft a uniquely American, speech-protecting site-blocking regime."

Schruers stressed that the availability of legal content remains the key option to deter piracy, while noting the availability of less-invasive enforcement avenues that can be explored.

These concerns didn't immediately convince all lawmakers and U.S. Representative Ted Lieu was particularly vocal. After browsing the Fmovies site on his phone during the hearing, he asked CCIA's President why ISPs don't block the site right now.

"I just went on my phone and went on Fmovies and it's still up. And I can watch Willy Wonka for free without paying for it. Why don't the online service providers block it right now, like today?" Lieu asked.

"This is such an unreasonable case it is so clearly online piracy copyright infringement and you don't want your organization and your members to be defending something so blatantly unlawful and unreasonable. So I just ask your members to block that site today."

'Block Fmovies Today'

Mr. Schruers highlighted that the broadband access providers who can block the site aren't here today and again stressed that legal availability is important and that less-invasive anti-piracy options are available. That didn't convince Rep. Lieu, however, who requested the ISPs to be present at a future hearing.

"I ask the Chair of this Committee to call in a hearing with the witness that represents the members that could block this site and block it now," Lieu said.

SOPA Scars and Instant Takedowns

Committee Chairman Darrell Issa agreed to invite the ISPs directly for a future hearing, so they can explain their position. Meanwhile, it also became clear that the tensions of the SOPA debates more than ten years ago, have left permanent scars.

"I hope we don't get into another tumultuous, dysfunctional technical fight as we did twelve years ago," Rep. Zoe Lofgren noted.

The copyright representatives made repeated callbacks to the previous attempt to establish an American site-blocking regime. At the time, there were massive public protests and a broad revolt by Internet companies who feared overblocking and other negative consequences.

These concerns were real at the time but now that site blocking has been rolled out in dozens of countries around the world, they should be reconsidered.

"None of the hyperbolic predictions about the effects of site blocking have come true. Examples of overblocking of non-infringing content, stifling free expression, or deprivation of due process have been rare to the point of non-existence," MPA's Temple said.

Mr. Schruers countered by pointing out that there have been overblocking incidents, reminding lawmakers that Spotify was inadvertently blocked in the House of Representatives ten years ago.

All in all, however, the Committee made it clear that something must be done.

Chairman Darrell Issa ended the hearing by mentioning that the import of copyrighted and trademarked goods can be easily stopped by U.S. customs, suggesting that the same should apply to the 'import' of pirated goods online through sites such as Fmovies.

"For what's possible in the tangible world, we want to find a solution in the Internet world. We will not quit under this committee until we do so," Issa concluded.

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: