Tuesday, April 30, 2024

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

DISH Sued Two IPTV Resellers: First Case Dismissed, Second Owes $30m
Andy Maxwell, 29 Apr 09:47 PM

tv future-sLast November, IPTV subscription resellers operating from channels4cheap.com (C4C) and purchase-iptv.com found themselves being sued by broadcaster DISH Network.

After what appears to have been a handful of trouble-free years of trading, the lawsuit named Texas residents John Gwaka Magembe and Joyce Berry as the alleged operators of the C4C website.

The decision to sell packages branded as Beast TV, a service that was taken down three years earlier by several Hollywood studios, Netflix, and Canada's Bell Media, may have been a ploy to exploit existing brand awareness among pirates. The obvious downside was awareness among rightsholders.

DISH Was More Aware Than Expected

"Defendants are trafficking in the Beast TV internet streaming television service a/k/a Channels4Cheap through their websites located at www.channels4cheap.com and its sister website www.purchase-iptv.com," the company wrote in its complaint.

"Defendants sell Device Codes [subscriptions] to the Service on the C4C Website for $2 for a forty eight hour trial; $15 for one month; $40 for three months; $70 for six months; and $120 for twelve months, depending on the option selected by the user."

And then came the body blow. DISH produced a screenshot to show that a person, also called John Magembe, was among the top 10 resellers of Beast TV subscriptions when the platform was in full swing.

In common with many other lawsuits of this type, this seemed destined for a predictable outcome. The final judgment would be months in the making so, in the interim, DISH took on another reseller.

IPTV and Astrology Align

In a complaint filed at a California court in February, DISH and Sling described Mr.Sharma of Sharma IPTV, and his company Astro Vastu Solutions (AVS), as traffickers of an illegal streaming service. Flyers distributed in the Bay Area advertising the service had led to DISH investigators handing over $135 for a subscription test purchase.

sharma iptv

Payment for the alleged 10,000 channel service was made to Astro Vastu Solutions LLC. DISH and Sling alleged that this was to separate the name Sharma IPTV from transactions, with users asked to disguise their payments as something unrelated, such as an astrology consultation. Evidence presented in court reveals that the DISH test purchase was recorded as a "3 month warranty" (pdf).

Other documents filed in the lawsuit reveal that a cease-and-desist notice sent to Sharma IPTV last September contained an offer to settle the case. DISH and NagraStar cited similar cases where failing to settle ended up costing a lot more, the $100m+ judgment against Nitro TV, for example.

With the $1m settlement offer attracting no interest, the companies ultimately sued for willful violations of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2) and 17 U.S.C. § 1201(b)(1) when the defendants manufactured, offered to the public, provided, or otherwise trafficked in their infringing IPTV service. DISH and Sling also demanded an injunction under 17 U.S.C. § 1203(b)(1) plus actual or statutory damages of up to $2,500 for each infringement under § 1201.

On February 20, 2024, DISH and Sling filed their motion for preliminary injunction but were unable to personally serve the defendants until early March, leading to a request to continue the hearing on May 30, 2024, around a month from now.

Then, seemingly out of the blue, a note appeared on the docket last week. It revealed that since the owner of Sharma IPTV was representing himself, he would appreciate some help from the clerk of the court "to process and serve documents to other parties."

sharma-note

Exactly what that note means in the context of the lawsuit, which started with a rejected $1m settlement offer and escalated from there, isn't made clear from the docket.

What is clear, however, is that the very next day DISH and Sling dismissed all of their claims in the lawsuit.

dismissed-1

An accompanying note states that the notice of dismissal was served on the defendants at their last known addresses. Beyond that, there's no additional information to explain why such a serious matter suddenly ended with no mention of a settlement.

Contrasting Fortunes

For channels4cheap.com (C4C) and purchase-iptv.com operators John Gwaka Magembe and Joyce Berry, their fates diverged considerably, even from each other. It transpired that Berry is Magembe's mother and the reason she appeared as a defendant in the lawsuit was her son's unauthorized use of her bank account to receive payments for IPTV subscriptions. Berry was dismissed from the case, Magembe was left to face the music alone.

In a judgment handed down April 26, 2024, District Judge Mark T. Pittman noted that the plaintiffs had filed a well-pleaded complaint but the defendants' failure to defend the claims against them had "brought the adversarial process to a halt, causing substantial prejudice to Plaintiffs."

Based on this and other factors, a default judgment was warranted (1,2). On top of a broad injunction to restrain any similar conduct, Judge Pittman said that Magembe must pay damages totaling over $30 million in connection with the sale of at least 12,000 'device codes' (subscriptions).

dish damages

The conclusions of these cases couldn't have been more different, despite being about broadly the same thing: reselling IPTV subscriptions to services operated by people other than the defendants in these cases.

Predictions sometimes miss the mark but for those who like a wager, it's more than likely that new information will play a role when DISH moves on to its next targets. And the targets after those.

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

Court Keeps DMCA Subpoena Shortcut Closed, Restricts Piracy Settlements
Ernesto Van der Sar, 29 Apr 01:53 PM

pirate-flagTracking BitTorrent pirates isn't all that hard since IP addresses are openly broadcasted. With help from Internet providers, these addresses can then be linked to account holders.

ISPs don't hand over this data voluntarily; they typically require a subpoena or court order before taking action.

In the United States, subpoenas are typically obtained by filing a copyright complaint in federal court against a "John Doe" who's known only by an IP address. Most of these cases are filed against a single person, which makes it a relatively expensive process.

DMCA Shortcut

In recent years, some rightsholders have used a shortcut to bypass this costly process. Taking a page from the RIAA's early efforts to identify music pirates in the early 2000s, they used the DMCA subpoena process to obtain the personal details of suspected copyright infringers.

Unlike regular subpoenas, the DMCA equivalents are not reviewed by a judge and only require a signature from the court clerk. While several courts effectively banned the practice two decades ago, the new attempts cited fresh interpretations and conflicting case law, to back up their requests.

This tactic worked as many courts went along with these new requests, requiring Internet providers to identify hundreds, if not thousands of alleged pirates.

It's not always clear what the rightsholders do with this personal information, as the eventual follow-ups fall outside the court's purview. Typically, however, rightsholders reach out to alleged pirates privately to negotiate some type of settlement; either monetary, in exchange for information, or both.

Cox Intervenes with Success

Most of these recent DMCA subpoenas progressed quietly, with little fanfare or pushback, but that changed last year when a Cox subscriber filed an objection in court.

The objection triggered Cox Communications to intervene. The Internet provider decided to challenge the use of the DMCA subpoena tool, as detailed in DMCA §512(h). Similar to the earlier opposition against RIAA's attempts, the ISP argued that DMCA subpoenas don't apply to mere conduit providers.

The challenge was fiercely contested by the rightsholders, including film companies Voltage Holdings, Millennium Funding, and Capstone Studios, who argued that ISPs can be required to respond to DMCA subpoenas.

Mere Conduit?

The main contention in this case is whether DMCA subpoenas apply to regular Internet providers. Cox argued that they don't, as it's a mere conduit provider. This falls under the DMCA §512(a) safe harbor, which does not require ISPs to take anything down, as nothing is stored by the ISP.

DMCA subpoenas don't apply to DMCA §512(a) services, but do apply to other providers that store or link to infringing content directly. As such, the movie companies' request should be denied.

A magistrate judge followed Cox in this reasoning and recommended quashing the subpoena. The Hawaiian District Court agreed, and earlier this year it effectively slammed the breaks on the DMCA shortcut.

The full ruling is much more detailed than the simplified version presented above, but the ultimate conclusion is that movie companies can't use the DMCA subpoena to unmask alleged BitTorrent pirates. In addition, the court held that any information they had already obtained this way, could no longer be used.

Court Keeps Shortcut Closed

Hoping to change the court's opinion, the filmmakers swiftly submitted a motion for reconsideration. In addition, they asked to stay the order to destroy any information that was previously obtained, pending a potential appeal.

In the motion for reconsideration, the movie companies argued that Cox and other ISPs are not just mere conduit providers under DMCA §512(a); they would also fall under DMCA §512(d), as they can remove or disable 'references or links' to infringing content.

If this argument succeeds, a DMCA subpoena would be valid, as these do apply to services that fall under DMCA §512(d).

The movie companies used various arguments to make their case. For example, they argued that IP addresses are in themselves "references or links to infringing material" which can be disabled through null-routing. In addition, Cox can respond to takedown notices by implementing filters or blocking ports.

links null

The court reviewed these reconsideration arguments but didn't change its conclusion. While null-routing would work, the measure goes far beyond disabling "access to infringing material" and is therefore not authorized by the DMCA.

"Null routing a subscriber's IP address is not equivalent to 'remov[ing], or disabl[ing] access to' links to infringing material or activity, because null routing a user's IP address has the outsize effect of terminating that address's connection to the network," the court writes.

The same applies to filtering techniques and port blocking, which go further than directly addressing alleged copyright infringements.

"[T]his argument would fail for the same reasons as Petitioners' 'null routing' argument—whether ISPs can in fact 'remove, or disable access to' infringing material or not, it would not change the court's interpretation of §512(d)."

The full motion for reconsideration includes several other attempts to classify Cox as more than a mere conduit provider, but these all fail. Ultimately, the court denied the motion for reconsideration, keeping the DMCA shortcut closed.

Piracy Settlements and User Data

The order is a setback for the rightsholders and also presents a new problem. The movie companies previously used the subpoena to identify Cox subscribers, and already settled with some of them.

Since the court ordered all information from the subpoena to be destroyed and returned, the movie companies fear that Cox will delete all subscriber data, while they still have the option to appeal.

In addition, the movie companies used settlements to obtain testimony from subscribers on their piracy habits, which they would like to use as evidence against pirate sites. If the settlement data is deleted, that evidence can no longer be used.

"If Petitioners destroy this information, their legal proof for asserting legal relief against the piracy website and the subscriber data will be lost," the movie companies argued, asking the court to stay this 'destruction' order.

The movie companies don't mention any pending lawsuits against pirate sites but they previously identified "watchmovierulz" and "piratebay" as sites that were mentioned as part of a settlement.

The court reviewed the arguments but didn't change its order. The court notes that Cox already agreed to retain the contested subscriber data pending further appeals, so that will not be lost.

The court further clarified that all pending settlement discussions have to end immediately. In addition, the movie companies can't use the evidence obtained from earlier settlements in potential lawsuits against pirate sites.

"Petitioners may maintain records of, for example, correspondence and binding settlement agreements with subscribers, but may not continue to seek settlement with any subscriber who has not yet concluded an agreement, and may not use information received from subscribers as evidence in litigation, e.g., against piracy websites."

pirate site settle

All in all, the court's latest order is another setback for the movie companies but it's not the end. The filmmakers have already indicated that they plan to appeal the case.

Needless to say, this could prove to be a crucial legal battle for copyright holders, Internet providers, and anyone accused of pirating content via BitTorrent going forward. At the same time, it may also cast doubt on how DMCA subpoenas are used against other services, such as Cloudflare and domain registrars.

A copy of the Hawaiian District Court's order denying the motion for reconsideration, as well as the motion to stay, is available here (pdf)

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

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 04/29/2024
Ernesto Van der Sar, 29 Apr 01:09 AM

dune2The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only.

Downloading content without permission is copyright infringement. These torrent download statistics are only meant to provide further insight into piracy trends. All data are gathered from public resources.

This week we have three newcomers on the list. "Dune: Part Two" is the most downloaded title.

The most torrented movies for the week ending on April 29 are:

Movie Rank Rank last week Movie name IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrent sites
1 (1) Dune: Part Two 8.8 / trailer
2 (…) Monkey Man 7.1 / trailer
3 (…) Love Lies Bleeding 6.9 / trailer
4 (…) Arthur The King 7.0 / trailer
5 (4) Kung Fu Panda 4 6.4 / trailer
6 (3) Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire 6.5 / trailer
7 (5) Rebel Moon – Part Two: The Scargiver 5.2 / trailer
8 (6) Late Night With the Devil 7.2 / trailer
9 (2) Immaculate 6.0 / trailer
10 (8) Dune: Part One 8.0 / trailer

Note: We also publish an updating archive of all the list of weekly most torrented movies lists.

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

Sunday, April 28, 2024

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Operation Anime Phase 2: New Anti-Piracy Crackdown Executed in Brazil
Andy Maxwell, 28 Apr 10:35 AM

brazil operation animeIn February 2023, Brazil's Ministry of Justice and Public Security revealed an extension to Operation 404, an ongoing anti-piracy operation to disrupt websites and apps involved in online piracy.

The purpose of 404-offshoot Operation Anime was to "suppress crimes committed against intellectual property" with a specific focus on piracy of Japanese cartoons, better known as anime. Several sites were shut down including goyabu.com and animeyabu.com.

Close to a year later, the Ministry of Justice has confirmed a new phase of Operation Anime with a new partner appearing for the first time in 2024.

Operation Anime Phase 2: Japan Joined By Korea

The announcement confirms that the goal of Operation Anime Phase 2 remains unchanged for 2024 and Japan-based anti-piracy group Content Overseas Distribution Association (CODA) still features prominently.

A change comes in the form of a new partner, South Korea-based Copyright Overseas Promotion Association (COA), which aims to suppress piracy of animated content, known locally as webtoons, on behalf of companies such as Kakao, Webtoon, and many others.

In the latest operation, authorities in Brazil report that police in five regions – Alagoas, Ceará, Minas Gerais, Rio Grande do Sul, and São Paulo – executed 11 home search and seizure warrants this week. The objective was to seize computer equipment containing evidence to show involvement in intellectual property crimes.

operation-anime-1

The Ministry of Justice reports that two websites were "blocked and/or suspended" but didn't officially name either. Based on information obtained from other sources, at this point, we feel confident enough to name one as definitely shut down

Animetvonline.cx

The search and seizure warrants covering Ceará were coordinated by the Cybercrime Repression Police Station (DRCC), with support from the Operational Center of the Specialized Judiciary Police Department (DPJE) and the Crateús Regional Police Station.

operation-anime-phase-2

The target was a 26-year-old man, alleged to be the operator of a pirate site receiving around 1.2 million visitors per month. At the man's home in Planalto Crateús, police seized cell phones, computers, hard drives, and other IT equipment.

As data from SimilarWeb shows, Animetvonline.cx had around 1.2m visits per month. In Google search, the site is now listed as "closed due to copyright infringement" and if one clicks through, a seizure banner hosted on CODA's website confirms it ran into terminal trouble.

animetvonline-cx-closed

With animetvonline.cx as a starting point, other domains start to show up that also appear to have been seized. They include animetvonline.xyz (zero traffic), animesbr.cc (3.4m), animesone.cc (60K), and animesonline.one (zero). These have links to animetvonline.cx but exactly when they were seized isn't clear.

Other information points to the shutdown of anime.vision and potentially a handful of others, but there's not enough solid evidence to show anything beyond coincidental downtime.

The action was coordinated by the Directorate of Integrated Operations and Intelligence (Diopi), through the Cyber ​​Operations Laboratory (Ciberlab), of the Ministry of Justice and Public Security (MJSP).

CODA and COA signed a memorandum of understanding in December 2017 and have been working together ever since to protect content overseas, including in Brazil.

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

Anti-Piracy Veteran Tim Kuik Retires After Leading BREIN for a Quarter Century
Ernesto Van der Sar, 27 Apr 03:16 PM

kuik anakataIn the summer of 2009, hackers from all over the world gathered at an outdoor conference near Vierhouten in the Netherlands.

The event was mostly a meetup of like-minded geeks, but one person stood out a mile; Tim Kuik, director of anti-piracy group BREIN.

Kuik joined a panel discussion where he calmly explained why his organization helped rightsholders to shut down pirate sites. The group was winning its lawsuit against Mininova at the time and had just booked a victory against the founders of The Pirate Bay just a few weeks earlier.

As the panel was opening up for questions, a stereotypical neck-beard sporting hacker stepped forward, questioning Kuik on comments he made about The Pirate Bay's revenues. It was none other than Pirate Bay founder Anakata, easily identifiable thanks to his Pirate Bay t-shirt.

The two opposites engaged in a brief tete-a-tete of which the contents are irrelevant at this point. However, Kuik's presence there, on that day, is exemplary of his tendency not to shy away from conversation, no matter the audience. The friendly photo both men took afterward is a testament to that.

Anti-Piracy Veteran Retires

Earlier this month, Tim Kuik informed TorrentFreak that he's retiring, passing on the baton to BREIN's new director Bastiaan van Ramshorst. While people retire every day, Kuik's departure deserves a special mention; he's an anti-piracy icon that formed a common thread throughout our reporting over the past 19 years.

Unlike others operating in a similar position, Kuik never dodged questions. Not everyone shares BREIN's goals but the organization is transparent whenever that's possible. The group also differs from many of its counterparts in its pragmatic approach. Instead of going for 'headline' convictions, BREIN focuses on the main goal; stopping pirates.

Kuik started his professional career at CIC Video International, shortly after he graduated from law school 42 years ago. In 1992 he became anti-piracy director at the Motion Picture Association's European branch, moving on to a role as MPA's global anti-piracy boss soon after.

When a new anti-piracy group was formed in the Netherlands, just before the turn of the millennium, Kuik changed positions again, albeit for the last time.

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

Needless to say, a lot has changed since Kuik started working in the anti-piracy field. In the early 80s, bootleg VHS tapes were just getting popular, while the World Wide Web had yet to be invented.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, Kuik recalls that the home video market was just opening up. Initially, movie studios saw videotapes as a threat, but they soon realized that they could market official movies to consumers as well, which proved to be a new source of revenue.

The downside was that pirates would create bootleg copies. This wasn't unexpected, but it posed a major problem. When E.T. came out in the early 80s, director Steven Spielberg was particularly upset and Kuik, working for CIC Video, was called in to solve the problem.

"When 'E.T. The Extraterrestrial' was released theatrically by Universal, Spielberg was very upset about the video piracy because he envisaged the movie as theatrical only and didn't want it on TV screens," Kuik says.

"So, I was tasked to collect evidence against video rental shops that carried illegal copies of it. The shops were full of illegal titles and we realized we had to band together instead of chasing individual titles."

This realization that 'cooperation' between studios was wise, paved the way for future anti-piracy initiatives. CIC Video was a joint venture of Paramount and Universal, both members of the Motion Picture Association, which became a key anti-piracy force in the following decades.

Kuik helped to bundle the powers of the major Hollywood studios, first at CIC Video, and later at the MPA. In that role, he helped to establish more than thirty local anti-piracy programs. Eventually, he moved to Los Angeles to become head of MPA's global anti-piracy program.

At the end of the nineties, he moved back to his home country, the Netherlands, to manage BREIN. This was the start of a 25-year adventure that left a mark on the industry in many ways.

Threats

Kuik served as BREIN's first director, which was initially a temporary role that he planned to fill for a few years. However, years turned into decades. While the role was rewarding, it also came at a cost. As the public face of an anti-piracy group, Kuik was often scolded by supporters of his opponents.

Most of this critique came from keyboard warriors, but there were escalations. At some point in the early 2000s, the threats got so out of hand that BREIN's office needed strict physical security. There was a constant barrage of hate aimed at the group, with Kuik often the prime target.

In a recent interview with a Dutch film magazine, Kuik mentioned that BREIN received hydrochloric acid in the mail at some point, adding that police complaints were filed on various occasions.

These threats have faded in recent years. In part, perhaps, because BREIN often found the law on its side in courts. The group can be credited for shutting down thousands of sites and services, including Mininova, the largest torrent site at the time.

Accomplishments

BREIN also went after The Pirate Bay. While it never managed to take the site offline, it did book many victories in court that greatly helped international anti-piracy efforts. This includes a ruling from Europe's highest court, which allowed The Pirate Bay to be blocked.

The court ruling laid the groundwork for other European pirate site blockades and, in the Netherlands, led to the first site blocking order after a legal battle of more than ten years.

"The best [achievement] is the CJEU ruling that The Pirate Bay is a copyright-infringing service. Although that did not close down the site, it set EU case law and, for us in the Netherlands, it made blocking possible, leading to a covenant with access providers about blocking illegal services," Kuik notes.

Site blocking is an essential tool, Kuik says, as it's often the only way to act against anonymous site operators who do all they can not to get caught.

Various other court rulings, where online intermediaries such as hosting platforms and payment providers were held accountable, also proved to be important. This helped takedown efforts and investigative work; to track down site operators, whenever possible.

While BREIN won most of the lawsuits it initiated, not all succeeded. The greatest defeat came in a Usenet-related lawsuit, where the court ultimately ruled that the provider was not violating copyright law.

The provider, NSE, had already shut down years before that final ruling came in but ended up with a moral victory.

After a legal battle of 14 years, the Dutch Supreme Court concluded that NSE itself was not liable for copyright infringement. The fact that NSE had a takedown procedure and no apparent knowledge of infringement, weighed in its favor and BREIN was ordered to pay €65,000 in legal fees.

Kuik sees the NSE verdict as the worst legal outcome in his career and still believes that the court reached the wrong conclusion. Despite the loss, he stresses that BREIN can and does hold usenet services accountable today, as they are required to take down infringing content while taking additional measures.

Piracy Remains a Problem

Despite all the hard work over the past 42 years, the piracy problem hasn't been solved. While the industry has more tools to tackle copyright infringement today, new forms of piracy continue to show up. This includes emerging technologies including artificial intelligence.

"Currently, illegal IPTV is the main threat to TV, film, series, and live sports. In addition, there are illegal sites that serve as large repositories for generative AI, which forms a threat to man-made creative content of any kind," Kuik notes.

If Kuik could dictate the law, he would make it mandatory for online services to verify who their customers are. Such "know your customer" policies could help to identify operators of pirate sites and services more easily, so they could be held accountable.

"In general, intermediaries should verify who their customers are and should be willing to share this with parties that are injured by such customers," Kuik says.

"Currently, such an obligation is based on case law and the principle of it is often denied by intermediaries, even though it exists for example for VAT purposes and for online marketplaces."

Rightsholders are already lobbying for these types of policies, which are high on anti-piracy wishlists around the globe.

Piracy Positives?

For Kuik, the active anti-piracy work ends here. When asked whether there is anything positive about piracy at all, he's willing to entertain the idea that unauthorized use, in some cases, has shown the way for legal business models.

For example, one can argue that Napster led to the first legal digital music store, and that services such as Netflix and Spotify were positioned as piracy alternatives when they first hit the market. Kuik recognizes this, at least in part.

"You could indeed argue that there are instances where illegal (unauthorized) exploitation showed the way forward before licensed models were established," Kuik tells us

While piracy may lead the way, Kuik stresses that it's certainly not sustainable. Without proper enforcement, it's hard for legal services to compete and their revenues are vital for creating the new content consumers demand.

"Enforcement is one of the conditions to get rightsholders to enter a market and make legitimate businesses thrive. And that, in turn. secures structural employment in content creation and distribution. Which is what the customer wants. Piracy does not provide that," Kuik concludes.

Back in 2009, when Kuik and Pirate Bay founder Anakata went head-to-head, the situation was no different, and both men agreed to disagree. However, battling The Pirate Bay indirectly brought BREIN its key site blocking victory several years later.

While Kuik moves on, his legacy remains. The same is true for a 'copy' of the iconic Pirate Bay t-shirt Anakata was wearing at the hacker conference, which is one of the many relics still on display in BREIN's office.

The Kuik / Anakata photo was taken by and is credited to Reinoud Van Leeuwen

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