TorrentFreak's Latest News

Judge Hits Pirate IPTV Defendant With $71.1k Contempt of Court OrderAndy Maxwell, 19 Dec 09:52 AM In July 2022, popular IPTV service provider Smooth

Judge Hits Pirate IPTV Defendant With $71.1k Contempt of Court Order Andy Maxwell, 19 Dec 09:52 AM In July 2022, popular IPTV service provider SmoothStreams suddenly went offline in somewhat unusual circumstances. In the weeks that followed, evidence emerged that the Canada-based service had been targeted after Bell Media, Rogers Media, Disney, Paramount, Columbia, and Warner Bros. filed a copyright infringement complaint at Canada's Federal Court. On July 14, 2022, after obtaining an injunction and an Anton Piller order, which authorized the plaintiffs to search and seize evidence from premises linked to the defendants, dozens of receivers, encoders, and rows of servers were seized from three locations. Other aspects of the Anton Piller order, which granted the plaintiffs extraordinary powers and threatened serious consequences for any non-compliant defendant, faced considerable resistance. SmoothStreams before being dismantled Among other things, the alleged operators of SmoothStreams, Marshall Macciacchera and Antonio Macciacchera (son and father respectively), were required to disclose specific technical and financial information about the service's operations. Marshall failed to fully comply with the order; Antonio simply refused to read it. From the beginning, Antonio denied any involvement in the SmoothStreams operation, a position he maintains today. Contempt of Court While both defendants faced contempt of court proceedings, Antonio's case progressed more quickly than his co-defendant's. An order issued by Associate Judge Benoit Duchesne on July 21, 2022, concerned ten charges pertaining to alleged breaches of the Anton Piller order issued by Justice Rochester on June 28, 2022. Chief Justice Paul S. Crampton subsequently found that Antonio was in contempt of four of the ten charges in that order. The final six all faced issues. In respect of five charges, Chief Justice Crampton found that while the plaintiffs had previously tendered evidence in the proceeding before Justice Rochester, no evidence was presented in this particular hearing to connect Antonio to any of the technical and financial information listed in Judge Duchesne's order. The final charge also failed after no evidence was produced to show that Antonio concealed anything described in Justice Rochester's interim order. While logic suggests that four charges must be better than ten, contempt of court can be expensive, especially since this proceeding relates to an amount to be awarded to the plaintiffs, with the Court to impose additional penalties later. Bell, Rogers, and Hollywood Studios Demand Big Money As detailed in an order handed down by Chief Justice Crampton on Friday, the plaintiffs demanded an immediate payment of CAD$121,124.74 (US$90,440), comprised of $100,038.55 (US$74,695) in legal fees (100% of those incurred), HST (sales tax) of CAD$8,670 (US$6,473), and disbursements of CAD$12,416.19 (US$9,270). Antonio's legal team proposed a much lower amount of CAD$10,000 (US$7,466) in total, arguing that the amount was appropriate in light of the six failed charges and any subsequent amount to be imposed by the Court. In his order, Chief Justice Crampton notes that Antonio continues to insist he had no role in SmoothStreams. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs and the Court still had to "come to grips with a complex record" and an allegedly illegal business Justice Lafrenière previously described as "highly sophisticated" and "lucrative." While agreeing that the plaintiffs' failure to present evidence amounted to a "misstep" weighing in favor of a reduced award, a pro rata 60% reduction would not be appropriate since persistent refusals to cooperate "completely frustrated" the execution of the order. "Flagrantly Disobeyed" and "Defied the Court" "[B]y steadfastly refusing to permit the Independent Supervising Solicitor (ISS) […] to enter his home and execute the Rochester Interim Order, Antonio flagrantly disobeyed that Order and defied the Court. "He also completely frustrated an important purpose of that Order, which was to prevent the circumvention of the Court's processes by pre-empting the destruction or removal of evidence, or the shifting of funds beyond the Court's reach," Chief Justice Crampton's order reads. "In these circumstances, he ought not to be able to indirectly and fully benefit from the fact that his blatant defiance of the Rochester Interim Order entirely prevented [the ISS] from establishing the nexus between Antonio and the six charges." After weighing the factors for and against, including that Antonio "deliberately deprived the plaintiffs of the element of surprise," the Judge found that a 25% reduction would be appropriate. "The public interest in fostering compliance with court orders provides a strong rationale for the 'customary practice in contempt cases to impose costs on a solicitor-client basis'. This consideration weighs in favor of awarding the Plaintiffs their full costs, less the adjustments discussed above." As per Chief Justice Crampton's order (in Canadian dollars) handed down on December 15, 2023: The Defendant Antonio Macciacchera shall pay to the Plaintiffs, forthwith, lump sum costs of $94,906.19, comprising reasonable legal fees of $73,000, plus HST of $6,326.67 on those legal fees, plus reasonable disbursements of $12,416.19. Conversion: Lump sum US$70,863, legal fees US$54,506, HST US$4,723, disbursements US$12,416 From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. Internet Archive: Digital Lending is Fair Use, Not Copyright Infringement Ernesto Van der Sar, 18 Dec 08:30 PM In 2020, publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley and Penguin Random House sued the Internet Archive (IA) for copyright infringement, equating its 'Open Library' to a pirate site. IA's library is a non-profit operation that scans physical books, which can then be lent out to patrons in an ebook format. Patrons can also borrow books that are scanned and digitized in-house, with technical restrictions that prevent copying. Staying true to the centuries-old library concept, only one patron at a time can rent a digital copy of a physical book for a limited period. Mass Copyright Infringement or Fair Use? Not all rightsholders are happy with IA's scanning and lending activities. The publishers are not against libraries per se, nor do they object to ebook lending, but 'authorized' libraries typically obtain an official license or negotiate specific terms. The Internet Archive has no license. The publishers see IA's library as a rogue operation that engages in willful mass copyright infringement, directly damaging their bottom line. As such, they want it taken down permanently. The Internet Archive wholeheartedly disagreed with the copyright infringement allegations; it offers a vital service to the public, the Archive said, as it built its legal defense on protected fair use. After weighing the arguments from both sides, New York District Court Judge John Koeltl sided with the publishers. In March, the court granted their motion for summary judgment, which effectively means that the library is indeed liable for copyright infringement. The judgment and associated permanent injunction effectively barred the library from reproducing or distributing digital copies of the 'covered books' without permission from rightsholders. These restrictions were subject to an eventual appeal, which was announced shortly thereafter. Internet Archive Files Appeal Brief Late last week, IA filed its opening brief at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, asking it to reverse the lower court's judgment. The library argues that the court erred by rejecting its fair use defense. Whether IA has a fair use defense depends on how the four relevant factors are weighed. According to the lower court, these favor the publishers but the library vehemently disagrees. On the contrary, it believes that its service promotes the creation and sharing of knowledge, which is a core purpose of copyright. "This Court should reverse and hold that IA's controlled digital lending is fair use. This practice, like traditional library lending, furthers copyright's goal of promoting public availability of knowledge without harming authors or publishers," the brief reads. A fair use analysis has to weigh the interests of both sides. The lower court did so, but IA argues that it reached the wrong conclusions, failing to properly account for the "tremendous public benefits" controlled digital lending offers. No Competition One of the key fair use factors at stake is whether IA's lending program affects (i.e., threatens) the traditional ebook lending market. IA uses expert witnesses to argue that there's no financial harm and further argues that its service is substantially different from the ebook licensing market. IA offers access to digital copies of books, which is similar to licensed libraries. However, the non-profit organization argues that its lending program is not a substitute as it offers a fundamentally different service. "For example, libraries cannot use ebook licenses to build permanent collections. But they can use licensing to easily change the selection of ebooks they offer to adapt to changing interests," IA writes. The licensing models make these libraries more flexible. However, they have to rely on the books offered by commercial aggregators and can't add these digital copies to their archives. "Controlled digital lending, by contrast, allows libraries to lend only books from their own permanent collections. They can preserve and lend older editions, maintaining an accurate historical record of books as they were printed. "They can also provide access that does not depend on what Publishers choose to make available. But libraries must own a copy of each book they lend, so they cannot easily swap one book for another when interest or trends change," IA adds. Stakes are High The arguments highlighted here are just a fraction of the 74-page opening brief, which goes into much more detail and ultimately concludes that the district court's judgment should be reversed. In a recent blog post, IA founder Brewster Kahle writes that if the lower court's verdict stands, books can't be preserved for future generations in digital form, in the same way that paper versions have been archived for centuries. "This lawsuit is about more than the Internet Archive; it is about the role of all libraries in our digital age. This lawsuit is an attack on a well-established practice used by hundreds of libraries to provide public access to their collections. "The disastrous lower court decision in this case holds implications far beyond our organization, shaping the future of all libraries in the United States and unfortunately, around the world," Kahle concludes. — A copy of the Internet Archive's opening brief, filed at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, 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