Since the reign of the original Xbox, hacking team Team-Xecuter has built a reputation for defeating the digital locks that prevent users from running pirated games on consoles.

More recently, Team-Xecuter has been strongly linked to the Nintendo Switch scene but last year the operation hit the rocks when their operation found itself at the center of a criminal case prosecuted by the US Government.

Last year the US Department of Justice announced that two members of Team-Xecuter had been arrested. Max Louarn, a 48-year-old French national, and 51-year-old Gary Bowser from Canada, were placed in custody and charged under suspicion of being part of a criminal conspiracy. A third defendant, a Chinese man named Yuanning Chen, 35, was reportedly at large.

As that case progresses in the background, with Team-Xecuter’s future in the balance , Nintendo is now taking direct legal action against one of the defendants.

Nintendo Sues Gary Bowser in a US Court

Filed in Washington court on Friday, the lawsuit describes Bowser as one of the leaders of Team-Xecuter, which in turn is described as a “pirate operation” that unlawfully manufactures and traffics for profit an “unauthorized operating system” called ‘SX OS’ and associated circumvention devices.

“The purpose of the Circumvention Devices and the SX OS —developed, manufactured, and trafficked under Defendant’s leadership — is to hijack the Nintendo Switch by interrupting and bypassing its technological security features and protections,” the complaint reads.

“The Circumvention Devices strip away or circumvent technological protection measures Nintendo put into place to protect its invaluable copyrighted software and video games from unauthorized access and copying.”

Nintendo says that Bowser is one of a handful of key Team-Xecuter members running the operation day-to-day, including by trafficking in SX OS and circumvention devices via websites, marketing, managing advertising, liaising with manufacturers, and dealing with multiple resellers, several of whom have already been dragged through the courts in the US.

The gaming giant claims that Bowser operated at least four websites – Team-Xecuter.com, Xecuter.rocks, and Team-Xecuter.rocks, and Sx-Xecuter.com, through which SX OS and circumvention devices were marketed. Nintendo also claims that Bowser was the founder and operator of MaxConsole.com which served as a central location for customer and reseller support.

According to the complaint, Nintendo was able to match Bowser with the online handles “Gary opa” and “GaryOPA” since at times, the aliases appeared alongside the full name Gary Bowser. This shows that Bowser is Team-Xecuter’s “front man” and that he had control of the websites’ content, Nintendo adds.

Team-Xecuter and Gary Bowser – A History of Hacking

While the complaint only targets alleged Switch-related offenses, Nintendo supplies a potted history of Bowser’s involvement in the hacking scene dating back at least 13 years.

The complaint states that Bowser was charged in Canada in 2008 in connection with an “elaborate operation” to counterfeit Nintendo games and modify games consoles, adding that Bowser has trafficked in circumvention devices for several consoles prior to the Switch including Nintendo DS, Wii, and 3DS.

In respect of SX OS, Nintendo says it was wildly popular and at one point was pre-installed on 89% of modded/hacked Nintendo Switch products available for sale. This caused Nintendo “tremendous harm” and undermined the trust that third-party developers should have in Nintendo that their games won’t be illegally distributed or played.

Multiple and Sustained Breaches of the DMCA

Nintendo says that it should be protected by the anti-circumvention and anti-trafficking provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) but Bowser violated Nintendo’s rights by supplying SX OS and circumvention devices that defeated the company’s technological protection measures.

Trafficking in SX OS and circumvention devices has already been shown to be illegal, Nintendo writes, pointing to a pair of earlier Switch-related cases, one decided last December with a $2m judgment and another with a broad injunction .

“Notwithstanding some of the success Nintendo has had enforcing its rights against resellers of the Circumvention Devices, Defendant has continued to thumb his nose at the law, manufacturing and trafficking in the Circumvention Devices and SX OS,” Nintendo says.

“He has empowered resellers to re-emerge and launch new websites—including after the same websites had been shut down by courts and other vehicles of enforcement—and facilitated additional avenues of distribution, all forcing Nintendo into a game of whack-a-mole.”

Trafficking in Devices in Violation of the DMCA

Section 1201 of the DMCA prohibits the trafficking of devices that are primarily designed to circumvent technological protection measures that control access to and prevent the copying of copyrighted works. This includes their manufacture, importation, and sales to the public.

Nintendo says that Bowser violated its rights when it offered tools including SX OS, SX Tools, SX Installer, SX Server, SX Loader, SX Dumper, and similar software distributed via MaxConsole.com. The defendant also breached the DMCA when he selected and approved resellers of SX OS license codes, since that is considered a “service” as defined under the DMCA.

In addition, every time Bowser recruited people as testers of the SX Core and SX Lite products he shipped circumvention devices to those testers, which Nintendo says amounts to additional trafficking offenses.

For Bowser’s alleged violations of 17 U.S.C. § 1201 , Nintendo says it is entitled to the maximum statutory damages of $2,500 for each breach listed in two counts, plus costs and attorneys’ fees. The company also demands a permanent injunction prohibiting any further acts of trafficking in devices and software.

Nintendo also claims that Bowser infringed its copyrights when he displayed images of the company’s games on the Team-Xecuter site. Interestingly, the statutory damages for each infringement here are substantially larger than for breaches of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions. For each of the nine images displayed, Nintendo is demanding $150,000 in damages plus, costs, fees and a permanent injunction.

Finally, Nintendo wants Bowser to hand over all the domains listed in the complaint, including all of the Team-Xecuter, Xecuter, and MaxConsole variants. It also demands an order that will allow it to seize and destroy all copies of SX OS and circumvention devices in Bowser’s custody.

Nintendo’s complaint against Gary Bowser can be found here (pdf)

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

Nintendo is currently engaged in a war of attrition against individuals and groups who help people to pirate and play unlicensed Switch games.

Products and individuals involved with the infamous Team-Xecutor became targets last summer and alongside, Nintendo has been chipping away at other sellers of similar circumvention devices.

Lawsuit Filed Against Amazon Vendor

Last November, Nintendo filed a lawsuit against Le Hoang Minh, an Amazon vendor doing business under the name ‘Winmart’. According to the gaming giant, the trader was selling RCM Loader, a Switch device marketed as a plug-and-play solution for injecting payload files to allow booting into custom firmware (CFW), including Team-Xecutor’s SX OS.

“Once this circumvention has occurred, the unauthorized CFW modifies the authorized Nintendo Switch operating system, thereby allowing users to obtain and play virtually any pirated game made for the Nintendo Switch. All of this happens without authorization or compensation to Nintendo or to any authorized game publishers,” the company explained.

Le Hoang Minh, who according to Nintendo is a resident of Vietnam, was sent a DMCA notice by Nintendo via Amazon, citing the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. As a result, a specific listing was taken down by Amazon but the defendant subsequently filed a counternotice stating that Nintendo had made an error. As a result, the listing was restored.

In its lawsuit, Amazon claimed that Le Hoang Minh was not only a seller of RCM Loader devices but also the manufacturer too, going on to demand the maximum statutory damages available under the DMCA and a broad injunction preventing any future sales. Nintendo also demanded relief for the defendant’s alleged abuse of the DMCA’s counternotification system.

Defendant Fails to Respond, Nintendo Moves For Default

In a motion for default judgment filed this week, Nintendo says that it filed its lawsuit in response to the defendant’s counternotice, in order to keep the Amazon listing down. However, the defendant failed to respond to the lawsuit or enter into discussions with Nintendo.

As a result, Nintendo demanded a default judgment on each of its claims, arguing that since the defendant is in Vietnam, only a ruling from a US court would allow it to prevent sales of RCM Loader taking place in the United States.

To promote what Nintendo describes as “an efficient resolution” of the matter, the gaming giant reduced its damages claims to just $2,500 for all actions carried out by the defendant in breach of the anti-trafficking provisions of the DMCA.

“This request for a $2,500 award is intended to be very conservative and does not reflect anything close to the full amount of damages Nintendo could reasonably seek from Defendant,” the company writes.

“Nintendo could…credibly seek a separate award for every device Defendant sold — almost certainly many devices, given that Defendant’s RCM Loader device was available online for many months. However, rather than attempt to quantify Defendant’s total sales, Nintendo seeks to facilitate an efficient resolution of this case through entry of judgment awarding damages for a single § 1201 violation.”

Nintendo also informed the court that it had incurred considerable costs pursuing the case but was not seeking to have those reimbursed. However, the company still demanded a judgment in its favor in respect of the DMCA violations, the misrepresentations made by the defendant in his DMCA counternotice, and the request for a permanent injunction.

Court Sides With Nintendo

After considering Nintendo’s motion for default, the court ruled that should be granted. In a final judgment issued Thursday, the court laid down the terms.

A permanent injunction was granted against Le Hoang Minh and all other individuals and entities acting in concert, restraining all from circumventing or assisting in circumventing any technological security measures that effectively control access to Nintendo’s copyrighted works.

The same are also restrained from manufacturing, offering for sale, distributing, exporting or otherwise trafficking into the United States “any and all products, services, devices, components or parts thereof” that are designed or produced for circumventing security measures in Nintendo’s consoles, products and protected works.

Turning to RCM Loader and any product with identical function, the court restrained the defendant from carrying out sales, distribution, imports and/or shipping to any person or entity in the United States. Le Hoang Minh is also banned from indirectly infringing, facilitating, encouraging, promoting or inducing the infringement of Nintendo’s copyrights, whether in existence now or in the future.

In an effort to prevent sales on platforms such as Amazon, the defendant was restrained from offering RCM Loader or any similar product for sale or distribution. Any seller or online marketplace who receives notice of the order must also “immediately cease and permanently refrain” from offering any such products in the United States.

The court also authorized Nintendo to seize and destroy all circumvention devices and software that violate its copyrights or exclusive licenses. It further granted the $2,500 in statutory damages requested by Nintendo and reminded the defendant that any violation of the order may be punishable as contempt of court.

Nintendo’s Motion for Default Judgment can be found here (pdf)

The Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction can be found here (pdf)

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

Hawaiian attorney Kerry Culpepper has made a habit of putting pressure on key players in the piracy ecosystem.

Representing the makers of films such as “Hunter Killer,” “The Hitman’s Bodyguard,” and “London Has Fallen,” he’s gone after individual file-sharers, apps such as Popcorn Time and Showbox, and pirate sites including YTS.

Most recently, Culpepper and his clients expanded their reach to VPN services. Last month, they filed lawsuits against LiquidVPN and VPN.ht, accusing the companies of promoting and facilitating online piracy .

VPN.ht and Popcorn Time Lawsuit

Generally speaking, VPN providers are neutral services. However, these VPNs allegedly crossed a line by explicitly encouraging people to use the service for unauthorized activity. VPN.ht, for example, advised people to use the piracy app Popcorn Time with a VPN “to avoid getting in trouble.”

These allegations have yet to be backed up in court but, before VPN.ht responded to the complaint, the movie studios moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to freeze the company’s PayPal funds.

The rightsholders believe that this measure is warranted as VPN.ht’s alleged operator, Mohamed Amine Faouani, previously dissolved another company after it came under fire in a Canadian Popcorn Time lawsuit . They believe that the same could happen with “Wicked Technology,” which currently owns the VPN service.

Freezing PayPal Funds

In an order released late last week, Virginia District Court Judge Rossie D. Alston Jr. agrees that this is indeed likely. As such, he granted the motion to freeze VPN.ht’s PayPal funds.

The court concludes that jurisdiction is appropriate and mentions that Popcorn Time poses a significant threat to the copyright holders. And without a restraining order, VPN.ht could indeed move its PayPal funds outside of the court’s reach.

“Plaintiffs would be irreparably harmed absent a TRO because Defendants would have the incentive and capacity to transfer their assets from any account within the United States, depriving Plaintiffs of the ability to obtain monetary relief,” Judge Alston Jr. writes.

No Harm?

According to the court, there is a strong likelihood that the movie companies will win this case anyway, which weighs in favor of granting the request. At the same time, the VPN provider isn’t really harmed by this decision, the order notes.

“Defendants are unlikely to suffer any cognizable harm from the TRO as they will merely be prevented from profiting from past infringement and moving their funds beyond the reach of the Court.”

While the court suggests otherwise, seizing the assets of a company can seriously impede its operation. That said, PayPal is just one of the payment options used by the VPN and several other alternatives remain available.

Discovery and Locked Domain Name

In addition to freezing the PayPal funds, the court also allows the movie companies to request further information from PayPal, Cloudfare and GitHub. This could help to find out more about VPN.ht’s operation as well as the Popcorntime.app software, which is part of the same lawsuit.

Finally, the court also signed off on a request to order Google or its reseller to lock the Popcorntime.app domain name, so that it can’t be transferred outside of the court’s reach.

At the time of writing VPN.ht remains online and the operator has yet to respond in court. The pressure on Popcorntime.app appears to have paid off, however, as the domain now redirects to a “goodbye” message on Medium.

Meanwhile, the movie companies have just requested yet another temporary restraining order, this time keeping it away from public view. However, it is likely that the copyright holders want to freeze additional funds or assets.

—

A copy of the order issued by Virginia District Court Judge Rossie D. Alston Jr. is available here (pdf)

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

In the wake of the RIAA’s effort to have ripping tool youtube-dl removed from Github , YouTube-ripping service Yout.com went on the offensive.

In a complaint filed at a Connecticut court, Yout argued that previous actions by the RIAA against its service, including the delisting of its homepage from Google based on the allegation that Yout circumvented YouTube’s ‘rolling cipher’ technology, were wrongful and damaged its business.

RIAA Fights Back

As reported in January, the RIAA presented a robust response in a motion to dismiss, noting that just because Yout had “figured out” how to defeat the YouTube rolling cipher, that did not make the Technological Protection Measure (TPM) any less eligible for protection under section 1201 versus one that could not be defeated.

“Plaintiff concedes that it ‘encounters’ the rolling cipher and then ‘reads and interprets the JavaScript program’ and ‘derives a signature value’ to access the file,” the RIAA wrote .

“The only reasonable inference to draw from those vague allegations is that the Yout service enables users to avoid or bypass that technological measure—that is the very definition of circumventing a TPM under section 1201.”

Furthermore, in response to Yout’s claims that the RIAA must’ve known that the service did not circumvent technical measures and therefore shouldn’t have filed DMCA notices against it, the RIAA pointed out that under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) , only misrepresentations regarding alleged copyright infringement are available, not misrepresentations regarding alleged circumvention.

Yout’s Opposition to RIAA’s Motion to Dismiss

In Yout’s latest response, the stream-ripping service reiterates that it does not decrypt, bypass or avoid any measures on YouTube as the necessary information to access streams is freely available to anyone who seeks it. Yout describes that as essentially a “copy/paste” scenario, as provided for by any online content stream.

Yout’s Mere Use of the Signature Value Does Not Violate 17 USC §1201

The company says that the words “avoid” and “bypass” suggest ‘abuse’, countering that what its service actually does it ‘use’ a technological measure, which is an entirely different matter. Citing an earlier case involving DISH Network, Yout says that by utilizing the intended mechanism for decryption, no bypassing, avoidance or bypassing of a system took place.

“Here, the methodology employed by Yout is analogous. Yout utilizes the same signature value freely distributed by any video-sharing website, such as YouTube. This is the exact same signature value that appears to any web browser,” Yout’s response reads.

“Yout need not decrypt, bypass, or avoid anything as these signature values are freely given, and Yout uses the value, not in any cryptic way, but just as it is provided by any video-sharing website to anyone that requests it.

“Anyone can access and use the signature value of any free streaming content’s [sic] using only a browser, without other software, youtube-dl, the Yout service, or any similar tool,” Yout writes.

RIAA has not Identified any Copyrighted Works at Issue

Running with the claim that Yout does not circumvent any effective technological protection measure, the company says that the requirement that circumvention takes place without the permission of the copyright holder is not reached. However, the fact remains that the RIAA has failed to identify any copyrighted works that have allegedly been infringed.

“To prove a violation of § 1201, Defendant’s members must show not only circumvention but that the circumvention results in access to a copyrighted work. However, nothing in the RIAA’s notices references ownership of any specific copyrighted work purportedly protected by the rolling cipher,” Yout’s response reads.

Yout acknowledges that case law potentially raises complications but reminds the Court that the RIAA’s notices clearly accuse Yout of facilitating copyright infringement, specifically contributory copyright infringement. This leads Yout to raise the issue of misrepresentations in the RIAA’s DMCA notices and the music group’s claim that under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f), penalties are only available for misrepresentations regarding alleged copyright infringement.

Settlement Conference Has Been Scheduled

After Yout asked the Court to reject the RIAA’s motion to dismiss, United States Magistrate Judge Robert A. Richardson reported that a video settlement conference had been arranged for May 5, 2021, with both parties ordered to attend.

The Judge’s order requires Yout to have someone attend with full and final authority to dismiss the case with prejudice and to accept any settlement amount or offer. The RIAA must be represented by someone with the authority to commit to a settlement amount.

“The purpose of this requirement is to have in attendance a person with both the authority and independence to settle the case during the settlement conference without consulting anyone not present,” the order reads.

Not less than 14 days before the conference date, the parties are required to begin negotiating the terms of any settlement.

Yout’s Response to RIAA’s Motion to Dismiss / Conference Order here and here (pdf)

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

On 19 January 2012, the United States Department of Justice seized and shutdown Megaupload, a massive cloud-storage site founded by Kim Dotcom.

On the same day, Dotcom and several of his associates were arrested in New Zealand in a military-style raid on his rented mansion, carried out at the behest of US authorities. Ever since, the United States justice system has fought tooth and nail to have Dotcom, Mathias Ortmann, Finn Batato and Bram van der Kolk extradited. That has proven difficult, to say the least.

Unstoppable Force Meets Immovable Object

Whether US or New Zealand authorities expected a monumental fightback from their targets is unknown. But that is exactly what they got. Rather than backing down, Dotcom’s defense team hasn’t given an inch, with every substantial claim challenged in minute detail, and every counterclaim met with the same determination.

As a result, New Zealand’s courts have been kept busy for more than nine years, expending resources on several cases – many involving extradition matters – that are still not over. But while the outcome of this entire process remains uncertain, there can be no doubt over the scale of financial resources poured into the prosecution of Kim Dotcom.

Until now, only estimates of the true costs involved have been aired in public but thanks to an Official Information Act request and data published by NZ Herald ( paywall ), the cost to New Zeland’s taxpayers thus far are now up for scrutiny.

New Zealand’s Bill is Substantial and Growing

Earlier estimates of a few thousand hours spent on various Dotcom-related cases seemed to be within reason. However, the latest published figures show that government lawyers have already spent 40,500 hours working on these cases over the past decade. Or, as NZ Herald frames it, if the lawyers had been working 40-hour weeks, the effort exerted would be 19 years and six months.

Worryingly, that’s not the entire financial picture either. The data shows that on top of the 40,500 hours of government lawyer time, extra costs including external legal work, airfares, and general administration, account for an additional NZ$3.6 million (US$2.6 million) in expenditure.

Allocation of Legal Resources

Government spending on the Megaupload matter reportedly began before Dotcom was even arrested. In preparing the case against him, Crown Law – the office that provides legal advice and representation services to the government – had already spent 432 hours working on the case. Then in 2012, 2013, and 2014, more than 7,000 hours were expended each year dealing with the fallout.

And the fallout has been huge. Dotcom’s cases have expanded into an interconnected web of complex processes, dealing with matters such as illegal spying by government agencies through to the extradition case itself. In 2011, Crown Law was prepared for two proceedings. Since then the tally has grown to almost two dozen.

Goliath versus…Goliath?

That a wealthy Pacific nation can afford to continue with expensive litigation over the course of a decade shouldn’t be a surprise but the fact that it is effectively up against the determination and resources of one man should be pause for thought.

Kim Dotcom has occasionally hinted at the scale of his legal bills since 2012, suggesting that they run into the tens of millions of dollars. How he has been managing to pay those bills after the authorities reportedly seized most of his assets isn’t completely clear but as recently as 2015, he was apparently “ broke and destitute ” and begging the courts for seized assets to be released.

Since then there has been little sign that Dotcom is struggling for cash, with his luxury lifestyle often portrayed on Twitter to the envy of many followers. How much he has spent on lawyers since 2012 isn’t revealed in the latest data but according to NZ Herald’s analysis, matching the New Zealand government’s expenditure would’ve cost Dotcom around NZ$25 million (US$18 million).

Not Over Yet

While Crown Law initially seemed somewhat unprepared for the expansive battle that eventually panned out, the office will have by now got the message that Dotcom isn’t one to back down. Despite all of the money spent on both sides to date, Dotcom is still entrenched in New Zealand and most probably will remain that way for years to come.

Meanwhile, Dotcom is as defiant as ever – both in court and on Twitter, of course.

40,000 hours wasted on this novel bullshit case which makes New Zealand look like an obedient colonial appendix defecating on their own rule of law in exchange for some “brownie points”. Embarrassingly dependent and spineless. But at least I don’t get Covid in New Zealand

— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) February 16, 2021

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

Back in 2016, Grammy award-winning musician Maria Schneider launched a scathing attack on YouTube, accusing the platform of “criminal rackeetering”.

According to Schneider, YouTube has “thoroughly twisted, contorted, and abused the original meaning of the outdated DMCA ‘safe harbor’ to create a massive income redistribution scheme.”

Last summer it became clear that Schneider’s opinions had not changed when her name appeared as a plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit filed against YouTube.

As previously reported, Schneider is joined by a company called Pirate Monitor in the suit and together they accuse YouTube of being massively deficient in its copyright enforcement measures, including by denying smaller artists access to its takedown tools (Content ID), failing to terminate repeat infringers, while profiting from piracy.

YouTube Accuses Plaintiff of Fraud

Last September, YouTube fought back by alleging that agents of Pirate Monitor opened bogus YouTube accounts to upload its own videos and then filed takedown notices against the same content claiming that its rights had been infringed.

According to YouTube, this was a ploy to gain access to Content ID after the company was previously denied access for having no track record of properly using the DMCA takedown process. This new and fraudulent approach only supported its earlier decision to deny access to the Content ID tool, YouTube said.

In November, the plaintiffs fought back, stating that YouTube had failed to provide any evidence to back up its allegations. But a month later, YouTube told the court that the same IP address used to upload allegedly-infringing content was also used to file DMCA notices to take it down.

Plaintiffs and Defendants Are Digging In

A case management statement published this week reveals that little progress has been made in respect of bringing the parties closer together.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class, repeat their claims that “millions” of copyright works have been distributed via YouTube in breach of copyright while alleging that they have no “viable means” of enforcing their rights other than via manual searches and takedown notices.

Furthermore, since YouTube only implements its repeat infringer policies for non-Content ID identifications, the plaintiffs argue that the video platform cannot claim safe harbor protection under the DMCA. For its part, Youtube says this is an attempt to relitigate its earlier copyright battle with Viacom, which found that YouTube is entitled to safe harbor protections.

“No law supports Plaintiffs’ assertion that denying them access to [Content ID] somehow makes YouTube liable for copyright infringement,” the video platform adds, noting that Schneider already has access anyway.

“Plaintiff Schneider already has access to Content ID through her publishing agent, who has used Content ID for years on Schneider’s behalf,” YouTube adds.

But there are more fundamental issues too.

Zero Copyright Infringement Alleged in Complaint

According to YouTube, Schneider has named just three copyrighted “works in suit” and Pirate Monitor has identified three too. However, neither has identified any infringement.

“[T]he Complaint failed to allege a single instance of infringement for even one of the six copyrighted works. That alone renders the claims deficient. Beyond that, Pirate Monitor recently admitted — five months into the case — that it does not have standing to assert infringement of one of the three works it asserted in the Complaint.”

YouTube says that Schneider did list around 50 new works that weren’t mentioned in the complaint during interrogatory responses but failed to allege ownership or registration. But there are other problems too.

“Schneider has failed to identify a single alleged infringement for approximately half of the new works, and the instances of alleged infringement she did identify all fall outside the three-year statute of limitations. Further, it now appears clear that Schneider’s publishing agent licensed YouTube to use all of Schneider’s musical works, which would independently defeat any infringement claim,” YouTube adds.

Class Action Unsuited to Copyright Disputes

Given the complexity of copyright infringement cases, YouTube says that the plaintiff’s suit will not be maintainable as a class action. Referencing an earlier failed attempt by the Premier League, YouTube describes the current litigation as a “Frankenstein monster posing as a class action.”

Evidence Preservation

According to Schneider and Pirate Monitor, YouTube isn’t taking its evidence preservation responsibilities seriously having rejected some of their demands. The plaintiffs say that YouTube is refusing to preserve videos that are deleted by users, even if they infringe their rights, demanding that the plaintiffs need to identify each one first.

“Defendants have also repeatedly taken the position that they will not preserve any evidence relating to the putative class in this case,” they add, a reference to entities that are not yet part of the class action – which could be almost any rightsholder.

Somewhat predictably given the scope of the plaintiffs’ demands, YouTube insists that it is preserving evidence but can only do so when the plaintiffs identify those works, noting that it does not have to guess at what that content should be. Also, when considering that almost any copyright holder could join the class action at a later point, effectively asking YouTube not to delete anything is a step too far.

“[P]laintiffs have made the extraordinary and unreasonable demand that YouTube preserve all ‘material and content’ uploaded to YouTube, notwithstanding users’ ordinary rights to delete their own data, simply because Plaintiffs have brought this case as a putative class action,” YouTube writes.

“They have cited no authority requiring anything like that, which would inflict huge costs and burdens on YouTube — essentially redesigning YouTube’s entire data retention system in violation of user privacy rights and at a cost of hundreds of hours of engineering time and millions of dollars — that are disproportionate to the legitimate needs of a case in which there are only two named plaintiffs asserting, at most, a small number of copyrighted works, and who have very low prospects of ever certifying a class.”

The case has been scheduled for trial starting November 28, 2022, but whether it will ever get there remains a question. The only certainty at the moment is that the parties couldn’t be any further apart in their positions and neither is showing any signs of giving an inch.

The joint case management statement can be found here (pdf)

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

After the RIAA caused outraged by filing a complaint that took down the open source software YouTube-DL from Github, YouTube-ripping service Yout.com sued the music industry group .

In common with its claim against youtube-dl, the RIAA had previously asked Google to delist Yout.com’s homepage on the basis that it too circumvented YouTube’s ‘rolling cipher’ technology. With both Github and the EFF arguing that youtube-dl’s features amount to little more than those already available in web browsers, an emboldened Yout.com hoped to take the fight to the RIAA and have itself declared legal .

RIAA Fights Back: YouTube’s Rolling Cipher is a TPM

In a motion to dismiss filed in a Connecticut district court, the RIAA is now attempting to remove the basics underpinning the entire Yout.com action. Apparently undeterred by the controversy surrounding YouTube’s ‘rolling cipher’ and its characterization as being somewhat ineffective, the RIAA says that according to copyright law, the threshold for a Technological Protection Measure (TPM) is already low.

“[T]he allegation that Plaintiff or others with technical expertise have figured out how to defeat the rolling cipher does not establish that the rolling cipher is ineffective for purposes of section 1201. If Plaintiff’s position were correct, it would amount to a free pass because the statute would only apply to those TPMs that could not be defeated,” the motion reads.

“For this reason, numerous courts have rejected the same argument upon which Plaintiff bases its claim about the alleged ineffectiveness of the YouTube rolling cipher.”

In short, just because YouTube’s measures are easily bypassed, it doesn’t mean they can’t be considered effective. According to the RIAA, this is due to section 1201 of the DMCA considering the abilities of an “ordinary” or “average” consumer, not those of “an online security engineer with a background in computer science” – a reference to Mitch Stoltz of the EFF, who authored a third-party letter in the youtube-dl matter.

“[T]he letter acknowledges that a German court has concluded, among other things, that circumventing the YouTube rolling cipher is ‘beyond the capabilities of the average user,’ and that it ‘was on this basis that the court declared the code to be an effective technical measure under Germany’s analogue of Section 1201. Plaintiff’s allegations therefore allow for only one plausible inference: the YouTube rolling cipher is an effective TPM,” the RIAA adds.

RIAA: Yout’s Non Circumvention Claims Fail

Yout.com’s lawsuit seeks a declaration from the court that the service does not circumvent YouTube’s ‘rolling cipher’ but according to the RIAA, that effort should fail. Circumvention means “to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner,” the RIAA writes, noting that Yout’s claim that it does none of these things isn’t plausible.

Referencing Yout’s complaint, the RIAA notes that the company admits that its entire purpose is to give users the ability to copy audio from YouTube in MP3 format locally, allowing that content to be consumed offline. The RIAA says that YouTube aims to prevent users from “turning certain streams into downloads” and the method used to enforce that is its ‘rolling cipher’.

“Plaintiff concedes that it ‘encounters’ the rolling cipher and then ‘reads and interprets the JavaScript program’ and ‘derives a signature value’ to access the file,” the RIAA writes.

“The only reasonable inference to draw from those vague allegations is that the Yout service enables users to avoid or bypass that technological measure—that is the very definition of circumventing a TPM under section 1201. For this straightforward reason, Plaintiff cannot plausibly allege a claim for declaratory judgment under section 1201.”

RIAA: Even Improper Anti-Circumvention Notices Can’t Be Countered

As mentioned earlier, the RIAA previously sent DMCA takedown notices to Google, demanding that Yout URLs should be delisted from search results on the basis that the Yout service itself is a circumvention technology.

Yout’s lawsuit states that since it does not circumvent technical measures, the RIAA either sent the complaints without carrying out appropriate testing or already knew that the site was non-infringing. As a result, Yout is entitled to compensation due to the RIAA interfering with the relationships between Yout and its customers, partners, and potential users.

Not so, says the RIAA, as no claim is available under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) .

“Plaintiff’s claim fails as a matter of law because the statutory text makes clear that
section 512(f) penalizes only misrepresentations regarding alleged copyright infringement , but not misrepresentations regarding alleged circumvention ,” its motion reads.

Citing the Arista Records, Inc. v. Mp3Board, Inc. case, the RIAA states that Section 512 “only penalizes copyright holders for knowingly materially misrepresenting ‘that material or activity is infringing.’ It does not provide a cause of action for knowingly materially misrepresenting [other claims].”

In other words, the RIAA believes it doesn’t matter whether the anti-circumvention notices were improper or otherwise since claims under Section 512 are limited to when there are misrepresentations of copyright infringement, not allegations of breaching technological measures.

Furthermore, even if Yout could state a claim for alleged misrepresentations, the RIAA says that the company has failed to plausibly allege that the music group knew that the Yout service did not circumvent YouTube’s ‘rolling cipher’.

“Plaintiff alleges that ‘Defendants failed to determine whether Yout’s software platform would, in fact, circumvent [YouTube’s rolling cipher] by testing the platform” with protected works. But purportedly failing to perform an adequate investigation is insufficient to establish a section 512(f) claim,” the RIAA adds.

As a result of the above and other issues that rest upon them, the RIAA believes that Yout’s first amended complaint should be dismissed by the court.

The RIAA’s motion to dismiss can be found here and here (pdf)

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

In 2018, a group of prominent record labels sued two very popular YouTube rippers, FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com .

The labels, including Universal, Warner Bros, and Sony, accused the sites of copyright infringement and hoped to quickly shut them down.

That didn’t go as expected. The owner of the sites, a Russian man named Tofig Kurbanov, lawyered up and fought back. Before the copyright issues were even discussed in court, the complaint was already dismissed.

A Battle over Jurisdiction

A Virginia federal court ruled that the music companies lacked personal jurisdiction . The sites were operated from abroad and didn’t ‘purposefully’ target or interact with US users, the court concluded.

This finding was not without controversy. The music companies disagreed and appealed the matter at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which sent the case back to the district court a few months ago.

The appeals court found that there are more than sufficient facts to conclude that Kurbanov purposefully conducted business in the US, specifically the state of Virginia. Kurbanov and his legal team disagreed but their request for a rehearing was denied.

Petitioning the Supreme Court

In an ultimate effort to take a victory over the matter, Kurbanov and his legal team filed a petition for certiorari at the US Supreme Court. The country’s highest court would be best equipped to decide on the issue, especially because there are conflicting precedents at lower courts.

Specifically, Kurbanov questioned whether his due process rights are violated when he is subjected to the jurisdiction of a US court, simply because his websites are frequently used there. Also, whether minor internet-based and internet-initiated transactions are sufficient to warrant jurisdiction.

Supreme Court Denies to Take the Case

This week the Supreme Court denied the petition, much to the disappointment of Kurbanov and his lawyers. This means that the case will now revert back to the district court to answer outstanding jurisdiction questions.

“Although we’re obviously disappointed that the Supreme Court did not take this opportunity to provide much-needed clarity on the issue, the matter now returns to the district court,” counsel Evan Fray-Witzer tells TorrentFreak.

In its first decision on the motion to dismiss, the district court chose not to conduct a “reasonability test” because the other arguments were sufficient to warrant a dismissal. Following the appeal and the Supreme Court denial, this will now be the first point on the agenda.

If the lower court decides that the complaint fails the reasonability test, it can still be dismissed over a lack of jurisdiction. Otherwise, Kurbanov will have to defend himself and his sites against the record labels’ copyright infringement claims.

‘YouTube Rippers Will Win this Case’

The defense, nonetheless, remains confident and believes it will be able to win the lawsuit no matter what direction it goes.

“It’s a longer path, but we remain confident that at the end of the day, the claims against Mr. Kurbanov will fail,” Fray-Witzer says.

“The record companies have fought technology at every step and yet cassettes, CDs, and streaming services still exist and the music industry continues to thrive,” the attorney adds.

When this lawsuit was filed there wasn’t much public debate about the legality of YouTube rippers but that has changed in recent months. The RIAA’s request to remove the youtube-dl software from GitHub triggered a heated debate that remains ongoing.

At the same time Yout.com, another YouTube ripper site, filed a lawsuit against the RIAA asking the court to declare its service as operating legally .

While they may take years to complete, these cases will be fought tooth and nail by both sides. That will ultimately decide whether people can continue to ‘rip’ content from online streaming services, or not.

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