Sunday, July 3, 2022

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

UK Govt. Prepares to Dissolve Anti-Piracy Group & Seize Its Assets
Andy Maxwell, 02 Jul 04:25 PM

trollMost higher-tier anti-piracy groups are interested in taking down illegal sites, services and other commercial-scale pirates.

Many of their targets are given multiple warnings before anything terrible happens because ending their piracy is the main goal. If that can be achieved without a legal battle, it's better for everyone and it's cheaper for everyone too.

But there are also anti-piracy groups that don't give warnings and don't believe in second chances, no matter how small the infringement or how poor the alleged infringer might be. In fact, these groups deliberately target residential internet subscribers and demand hundreds, even thousands of dollars, euros or pounds in compensation – and feel entirely justified doing so because the law allows it.

Public support for these enforcement schemes is comparable to that enjoyed by wheel clampers and ANPR-powered parking fine companies. Even some MPs have said they don't like them, and they've even been criticized in the House of Lords.

The common denominator is the obviously unhealthy power disparity between corporate giants and ordinary internet subscribers, something that is built-in and then reinforced by design. However, there is always someone bigger than the big guys and when they show up, the schadenfreude can be delicious. But before the main course, here's a small hors d'oeuvre.

The Power of the Limited Liability Partnership

Hatton and Berkeley (H&B) and its partners have been demanding cash settlements from UK internet subscribers for years. Its settlement model was initially quite ordinary but when it began promoting Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) as an anti-piracy "insurance wrapper", the projection of power was obvious.

The plan presented by H&B envisioned the use of LLP corporate structures to protect businesses involved in settlement campaigns, ensuring that if things went bad for them litigation-wise, any financial liability could be pre-planned and minimal.

In short, fortified corporate trenches should be dug to defend against financially insecure and legally-unaware members of the public. H&B Administration LLP was ready to step up a gear but what followed next was perhaps more surprising.

FACT Administration LLP

In September 2019, FACT Worldwide Limited – a company operated by Federation Against Copyright Theft chief Kieron Sharp – became a member of H&B Administration LLP. Even to admiring critics, that came as a big disappointment.

Due to its very nature, FACT's work has at times been controversial but its solid reputation is built on decades of painstaking work in complex and high-profile commercial-scale piracy cases. Cash settlement models targeting the public with expensive 'speeding tickets' seemed a particularly poor fit.

Nevertheless, in 2020 Sharp also joined the LLP as a named member and in 2021, H&B Administration LLP changed its name to FACT Administration LLP. It soon began pressuring internet subscribers for cash settlements on behalf of its movie company members and later added a scary payment portal warning of potential criminal action, as well as civil.

Protective Wrappers Are Subject to the Law

But while LLPs might have protective qualities, they aren't encased in a lawless bubble. Operating an LLP triggers responsibilities including statutory reporting requirements. These are laid down by the government and when ignored, escalating levels of otherwise avoidable trouble can lie ahead.

For example, should an LLP fail to submit its confirmation statement on time, the government doesn't get immediately upset. If we use the document below as an example, the statement date is April 11, 2022, and it's completely acceptable to submit one before April 25.

Taking longer, however, means the addition of big red text on a previously clean record.

fact strike off warning 2

Of course, it's human to forget things so the government is very good these days in that it can send a reminder before the statement is actually due – a friendly 'pre-infringement notice' of sorts. It's a very reasonable way to remind people that legal obligations aren't being met.

But even that isn't enough to get some corporations going. Before they have time to shout "protective wrapper" and demand £800, several months have passed and perhaps the most basic and cheap of all company filings still hasn't been done.

Quite why that's the case here is anyone's guess. Anti-piracy groups always seem so particular about the law when it comes to the actions of other people. When alleging infringement, for example, they sometimes suggest that internet subscribers who aren't the infringer failed in their "duty of care" by not anticipating what someone else might privately do on their connection, at some indeterminable point in the future.

If they'd had the luxury of an official reminder in advance, detailing specific dates and legal requirements, and that was followed by several polite warnings after, you could probably see their point. But for settlement targets, that never happens. No warnings, no chances. Give us money.

More Warnings Incoming

Thankfully, people who run LLPs do get polite reminders and then warnings about their failure to comply with their legal obligations. Earlier this week a notice appeared on the FACT Administration LLP page on Companies House, announcing that if it persists with its non-compliance, things could get very serious indeed.

"The Registrar of Companies gives notice that, unless cause is shown to the contrary, the Limited Liability Partnership will be struck off the register and dissolved not less than 2 months from the date shown above [28/06/2022]," it reads.

"Upon the Limited Liability Partnership's dissolution, all property and rights vested in, or held in trust for, the Limited Liability Partnership are deemed to be bona vacantia, and will belong to the Crown."

fact-gazette notice

This notice represents yet another warning to comply with the law after months and months of non-compliance. But here we are several days later and still nothing has been done. Some 'duties of care' are less important than others, it seems.

As a result, this week FACT Administration LLP was featured free of charge in Britain's oldest newspaper – The Gazette. It's much less 'fun' than the country's tabloids but easily competes with the 'red tops' when it comes to scandals, even while striving for reporting accuracy.

fact administration llp - strike off

"Not filing your confirmation statements, annual returns or accounts is a criminal offense – and directors or LLP designated members could be personally fined in the criminal courts," UK Government advice reads.

"Failing to pay your late filing penalty can result in enforcement proceedings. Any criminal proceedings for not filing confirmation statements, annual returns or accounts is separate from (and in addition to) any late filing penalties issued by Companies House against the company."

But of course, despite all the loud words and threats of dissolving the LLP and giving the LLP's assets to the Crown, it's unlikely that anything terrible will happen. There are no immediate financial penalties for filing a late confirmation statement and no matter how badly things go, it's nearly always possible to get a company back on track eventually.

Another plus side is that filing a confirmation statement is both easy and ridiculously cheap – just £13. However, if people can't spare 20 minutes and have money to burn (perhaps alleged pirates donated generously lately) a familiar company with an address in Mayfair, London, says it will do it for just £125. Probably best to send a few reminders, though, just in case.

Finally, reminders might also be needed in respect of US-based company TCYK LLC. Its movie – 'The Company You Keep' – featured in cash settlement letters initially sent out in 2015, including one sent to an 82-year-old grandmother.

The problem is that despite being listed as an active member of FACT Administration LLP, corporate data in the United States shows that the company has been dissolved leading to the possibility that doesn't exist. Companies House doesn't appear to have been informed about that but in a few months, perhaps someone will let them know.

——-

FACT Administration LLP structure facing strike off

Current person/entity with significant control: Hatton & Berkeley Management Ltd (Director: Robert Croucher, 75%+ shareholder 1)

Members, countries of incorporation (where applicable), plus sources/connections

Robert Croucher (UK) 1,2
Kieron Sharp (UK) 1,2
Oliver Williams (UK) 1,2
After 2 Movie LLC (USA) 1,2
After 34 Nevada LLC (USA) 1,2
Azil Productions LLC (USA) 1,2
Cinestate Run Hide Fight LLC (USA) 1,2
FACT Worldwide Ltd (UK) 1,2
H Films Inc. (USA) 1,2
Hatton & Berkeley Management Ltd (UK) 1,2
Icon Film Distribution Ltd (UK) 1,2
Right Angle Productions LLC (USA) 1,2
TCYK LLC (USA) 1,2 (dissolved)
Voltage Holdings LLC (USA) 1,2
Wonder One LLC (USA) 1,2

Former member/notable resignation:

Copyright Management Services Ltd (Patrick Achache – also Maverickeye/Guardaley)

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

Saturday, July 2, 2022

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

'Tarantino Doesn't Own the Copyright to Pulp Fiction Screenplay NFTs'
Ernesto Van der Sar, 01 Jul 10:27 PM

tarantino nftLast fall, movie director Quentin Tarantino announced that he would auction 'Pulp Fiction' NFTs to the public.

These NFTs would unlock handwritten scripts and exclusive custom commentary from Tarantino, assets that many fans would like to get their hands on.

NFTs are not without copyright issues, however, as Quentin Tarantino swiftly discovered. Movie studio Miramax, which owns most of the rights to the film, sees the plan as a contract breach and copyright infringement.

NFT Copyright Battle

In a lawsuit filed at a California federal court last November, the movie company accused the director of attempting to cash in on something to which he doesn't own the full rights.

"Eager to cash in on the non-fungible token ('NFT') boom, as widely reported in the media, Quentin Tarantino recently announced plans to auction off seven 'exclusive scenes' from the 1994 motion picture Pulp Fiction in the form of NFTs," the complaint read.

Despite this legal dispute, the first NFT was put up for auction early this year, selling for over a million dollars. Follow-up auctions were halted soon after but the same can't be said about the legal battle.

After some early mud-throwing back and forth, Tarantino's legal team asked the court to dismiss the case last month. According to the defense, Miramax's claims are ungrounded. Tarantino sees the film as a derivative of the screenplay he personally wrote and still holds the rights to

'Tarantino Only has the Print rights'

This week, Miramax responded to the motion, arguing that the star director misrepresented the facts. While he indeed retained some rights to the screenplay, those rights are rather limited.

"Defendants are roughly half right about the rights to Pulp Fiction. As one of the authors of what would become the blockbuster movie, Quentin Tarantino at one point had extensive rights to some elements that ultimately comprised the film."

"But he assigned and transferred virtually all of those rights to Miramax in June 1993, carving out only a specifically enumerated, limited set of 'Reserved Rights' far narrower than Defendants' Motion suggests," Miramax adds.

'History Rewritten'

Tarantino is "shockingly" trying to mischaracterize the license agreements by leaving out critical parts, Miramax informs the court. The movie company admits that the director reserved the print publication rights to the screenplay, but not much more than that.

The movie studio says that the 1993 agreement clearly shows that it holds virtually all rights to the Pulp Fiction screenplay. The legal paperwork also carved out a section for the distribution of content in new types of media that had yet to be invented.

That last past wasn't mentioned by Tarantino's legal team. Since NFTs did not exist yet in the nineties, these would certainly qualify as a new type of media, Miramax argues.

"Defendants' arguments rely on an incomplete, misleading factual history of their contractual rights and a strained reading of those limited rights. Put simply, nonfungible tokens, which host and display unique content using blockchain technology, were not (and could not have been) contemplated by the parties in 1993," Miramax writes.

'More Infringements'

Whether that is indeed the case is up for the court to decide. However, the movie studio believes that there are plenty of reasons to continue the case. Aside from the screenplay rights disagreement, the NFT sale also used other images and artwork that were directly related to Pulp Fiction.

For example, the early artwork on TarantinoNFTs.com featured iconic depictions of Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta, which have since been replaced with an image of Tarantino himself.

In addition, several tweets from the Tarantino NFT team with alleged copyright-infringing material were deleted as well. The tweets are also listed as infringing examples in the legal paperwork. These alleged infringements alone should be sufficient to support a valid copyright claim, Miramax notes.

—

A copy of Miramax' objections and response to Tarantino's motion is available here (pdf).

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

Friday, July 1, 2022

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Seven Pirate IPTV Operators Sentenced to Almost Nine Years in Prison For Fraud
Andy Maxwell, 01 Jul 11:59 AM

In many countries around Europe, pirate IPTV services, suppliers and resellers have become primary targets for entertainment industry groups.

These cut-price subscription streaming platforms are both widely available and popular with consumers but rightsholders view them as criminal enterprises with no legitimate place in the market. That belief is shared by law enforcement agencies across the continent, with Spain just one of the battlegrounds.

EGEDA Files Complaint, Police Carry Out Raids

In May 2019, audiovisual rights management group EGEDA filed a criminal complaint against Comprarccam, a supplier of pirate IPTV and card-sharing subscriptions.

A police investigation led to a report stating that the pirate operation was servicing at least 15,000 customers in Spain. Two of its leaders had been identified and traced to the cities of Salamanca and Zamora.

Police followed up with a two-phase operation in February and March 2020. Officers were able to seize documents and accounts information and then follow up with coordinated raids. Searches were carried out at six locations and seven individuals were arrested – one each in Zamora and Salamanca, one in Córdoba, three in Valencia, and another in Málaga.

All were detained under suspicion of IP-related crimes, including telecommunications fraud. Police seized computer equipment, mobile phones, more than 10,000 euros in cash, plus seven gold bars. The group's website and associated pirate services were closed down. Financial accounts and payment processing facilities were frozen based on claims that the group cost rightsholders around 11.8 million euros.

The Criminal Organization

According to prosecutors the 'criminal organization' behind the IPTV and card-sharing operation was led by two men.

One reportedly operated the 'logistics center' from his home in Zamora, carrying out tasks such as IPTV panel management and the servicing of users via online messaging. A second man from Salamanca was the administrator of a service that redirected users to streams enabling illegal access to sports content, movies and TV shows.

Five other members, responsible for distributing the infringing subscriptions to customers, operated from Córdoba, Valencia (x3) and Málaga. These individuals were considered important players but not as crucial as the men in Zamora and Salamanca.

An investigation carried out by the Technological Crimes Group of the Valladolid National Police determined that between May 2019 and May 2020, the defendants' fraud netted them around 1.2 million euros.

Defendants Sentenced to Almost Nine Years in Prison

More than two years after the raids, a court in Zamora (Audiencia Provincial) has now sentenced all seven defendants for fraud offenses based on the facilitation of access to infringing content.

The two leaders were each sentenced to 23 months in prison. Two others received sentences of 18 months and 16 months, with the remaining three handed 9 months each. However, it appears the defendants will avoid an immediate custodial sentence after pleading guilty and taking steps to repay the money they earned during the fraud period.

According to a local report, the defendants have already paid back most of the $1.2 million euros they earned with 250,000 euros left as a pending amount. If any of the defendants commit any new crimes during the next two years, they will be sent straight to prison to serve their sentences.

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

Cloudflare & Media Companies Agree to Modify "Power Grab" Piracy Injunction
Andy Maxwell, 30 Jun 09:31 PM

cloudflareWhen United King Film Distribution, DBS Satellite Services, and Hot Communication won copyright lawsuits against three pirate streaming sites in April, the court gave them everything they asked for.

In addition to millions in damages against pirate streaming/IPTV platforms Israel-tv.com, Israel.tv and Sdarot.tv, the court handed down the broadest injunction ever seen in a US piracy case.

The injunction banned every online service provider from doing any business with the pirate platforms and ordered residential ISPs to block their current domains and any that appear in the future. In hindsight, it was a case of being careful what you wish for, because you may just get it.

With extraordinary power at hand, the media companies (all members of anti-piracy group Zira) began seizing domains but mysteriously asked the court not to enforce the requirement for residential ISPs to block the sites.

It appeared that someone may have started to push back and after issuing all kinds of orders to a range of online entities, the situation began to deteriorate. After the plaintiffs asked the court to hold Cloudflare in contempt for not following their instructions, Cloudflare fired back with amicus curiae support from Google, EFF and CCIA.

'Power Grab' Injunction is Invalid

The briefs submitted to the court are detailed but all agree that the injunction is impermissibly broad, lacking in detail, and contrary to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and the DMCA. Perhaps surprisingly, the plaintiffs continued to insist that they knew better.

Last week they submitted documents to further support their expedited motion for a contempt ruling against Cloudflare. The filing included exhibits claiming to show that Cloudflare's DNS servers were servicing four new domains allegedly deployed by one of the pirate sites after its other domains were seized.

None of these domains were specifically listed in the injunction and as Cloudflare previously pointed out, any reading of the injunction that attempted to stretch it to cover new domains would violate fundamental limitations on the scope of available injunctive relief. Acting on the unsupported claims of the media companies with no judicial oversight is not an option, Cloudflare added.

Then this week, a sudden and unexpected light appeared on the horizon.

Broadest Piracy Injunction in the US Needs Adjustment

In a joint status letter filed Tuesday and addressed to Judge Katherine Polk Failla, whose signature authorized the original injunction, the media companies and Cloudflare say that progress is being made.

Following negotiations the parties say they have reached an agreement in principle to solve their differences. This will be achieved by addressing the core issues that led to the plaintiffs' attempting to hold Cloudflare in contempt while addressing concerns raised by Cloudflare during a recent conference.

The specific details are not being made available at this stage but as soon as the agreement is formalized, the plaintiffs say they will file a motion to amend the default judgment and permanent injunction handed down by the court on April 26. An amended order will be presented for the court's approval.

The plaintiffs say they will then withdraw with prejudice the pending motion for contempt against Cloudflare while reserving the right to file future motions to enforce the court's original order or amended order, as appropriate. In turn, Cloudflare has agreed to withdraw its request for attorneys' fees and costs incurred in responding to the plaintiffs' motion for contempt.

It will be of great interest to see how the amended injunction balances the interests of the plaintiffs with those of Cloudflare and, by extension, every other service provider affected by the original injunction.

Update: The docket shows no indication that the agreement in principle is now a done deal but Judge Failla responded Wednesday as follows:

"In light of the above status update, the Court hereby deems both Plaintiffs' contempt motion and Cloudflare's request for attorneys' fees and costs to be withdrawn."

The plaintiffs' declaration can be found here and the joint status report here (both pdf)

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

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company