Providing tools and services enabling players to cheat in video games is big business but after years of relative freedom, cheat facilitators are increasingly being targeted by developers for undermining gaming experiences and business models.

In June 2019, development group Global++, which had provided cheats for Pokémon Go and other titles, was targeted by Francisco-based Niantic, the game’s original developer. The original lawsuit , filed in a California federal court targeted “unincorporated entity” Global++, two individuals named as Ryan Hunt (aka ELLIOTROBOT) and Alen Hundur (aka IOS NOOB), plus 20 ‘John Does’.

According to Niantic’s complaint, the only permissible way to play its augmented reality games (Pokémon Go, Harry Potter: Wizards Unite, and Ingress) is via its original apps installable on mobile devices. These have permission to access Niantic’s servers and contain protected proprietary code, code which Global++ was alleged to have copied. Indeed, according to the developer, the Global++ software consisted of up to 99% of Niantic’s original code.

Predictably, this led to a broad range of copyright infringement allegations in the lawsuit but also included claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, broadly due to Global++ and its users accessing Niantic’s servers via hacked apps.

Parties Agree to Settle Case

As the case progressed, several parties’ names were added to the case while others were removed. Ultimately, Global++, IT Haven Inc., HLP Tech LLC, Ryan Hunt, Matthew Johnson and Alen Hunder remained as defendants, all of which have now agreed to settle their dispute with Niantic.

In a stipulation and proposed order filed Thursday, the parties agree that the defendants profited from unauthorized derivative versions of Niantic’s mobile apps (the “Cheating Programs”) that used “substantial portions of Niantic’s copyrighted computer code without Niantic’s permission.” These include Potter++ (a hacked version of the Harry Potter game), PokeGo++ (hacked version of Pokémon Go) and Ingress++ (hacked version of Ingress).

“All the Cheating Programs allow the Global++ Defendants and their customers to perform unauthorized actions while playing Niantic’s games, and allowed the Global++ Defendants to scrape Niantic’s valuable and proprietary map data. In other words, the Cheating Programs enable cheating,” the agreement reads.

Cheating Programs Undermined Gaming Experience

Since all of the above Niantic titles are multiplayer games, Niantic and Global++ agree that the hacked versions gave cheaters an unfair advantage over regular players, something which undermined the overall gaming experience. Furthermore, since Niantic sold subscriptions and collected payments via Patreon from “hundreds of thousands of users”, there was a profit motive underpinning the entire business.

The success of Niantic’s model also came at the expense of Niantic, the agreement reads, noting that the Cheating Programs “diminished enthusiasm” for the official products and in some cases drove players away from Niantic’s games altogether. As a result, the actions of the Global++ defendants damaged Niantic’s reputation and its business.

Agreed Breaches of Federal Law

The stipulation has the Global++ defendants admitting to a number of breaches of federal law, including violations of the Copyright Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The parties also agreed that the cheat makers’ conduct breached the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, California’s unfair competition laws, Niantic’s terms of service (breach of contract), while interfering with Niantic’s contractual relations with its customers.

As a result, Global++, Ryan Hunt, and IT Haven Inc. now admit to the offenses of direct copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement and vicarious copyright infringement. Matthew Johnson and HLP Tech LLC admit to contributory copyright infringement and vicarious copyright infringement, while Alun Hundur admits to contributory copyright infringement.

All defendants further admit to violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, California’s unfair competition law, breach of contract, and interfering with Niantic’s business relations.

$5,000,000 Settlement and Injunction

To settle the matter, the defendants have agreed to pay Niantic $5,000,000 in damages and subject themselves to an injunction permanently restraining them from developing, marketing, or receiving payment for the Cheating Programs or substantially similar products.

They also agree not to offer or receive payment for products utilizing Niantic data or intellectual property and to refrain from reverse engineering, decompiling, or disassembling Niantic products. “Cracking or tweaking” any tools that are able to interfere with Niantic server protocols is also barred, along with a wide range of associated activities.

The agreement is yet to be signed off by the judge but given the agreement between the parties, that is likely to be a formality in the days to come.

The associated documents can be found here ( 1 , 2 pdf)

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

By offering free access to millions of ‘paywalled’ research papers, Sci-Hub is often described as “The Pirate Bay of Science”.

The site is used by researchers from all over the world, to access papers they otherwise have a hard time accessing.

Academic publishers are not happy with the service. They see the site as a threat to their multi-billion dollar businesses and have tried to shut it down through several lawsuits. At the same time, publishers work to have the site blocked by ISPs around the world.

Blocking Lawsuit in India

In recent weeks, Sci-Hub has become the focus of a high-profile lawsuit in India where Elsevier, Wiley, and American Chemical Society want the site blocked. The case isn’t as straightforward as in other countries, in part because access to Sci-Hub is seen as vital by many local academics.

Earlier this week, the Indian High Court declared the case an “ issue of public importance ,” inviting experts and scientists to testify on the matter. Meanwhile, however, the pressure on Sci-Hub grows.

Twitter Suspends Sci-Hub Permanently

This morning, Sci-Hub founder Alexandra Elbakyan informed us that Twitter has suspended the site’s official account , which had over 185k followers and operated without notable issues for nine years. Elbakyan believes that it may be directly related to the legal action in India.

“It happened right after Indian scientists revolted against Elsevier and other academic publishers after Sci-Hub posted on Twitter about the danger of being blocked – thousands of people spoke up against this on Twitter.

“Now Twitter said to all of them, SHUT UP!” Elbakyan adds.

The reason for the suspension is related to Twitter’s “ counterfeit policy .” The social media platform doesn’t list any concrete takedown requests but simply mentions the policy violation and the fact that its decision can’t be appealed.

“Your account has been permanently suspended due to a violation of Twitter policies, in particular the Counterfeiting Policy. This decision is not subject to appeal,” Twitter writes, translated from Russian.

According to Sci-Hub’s founder, the suspension is an effort to censor her and all those who support the site in its legal battle against the powerful publishers.

Massive Support From Academics

Over the past several days, many Indian researchers and academics voiced their support of the site in replies to Sci-Hub’s tweets. While the tweets from these researchers are still up, they’re harder to find. And Sci-Hub can no longer call for support either.

“Now after the Sci-Hub Twitter ban that’s all gone. Now they can lie and pretend, that there was no support and there will be no easy way to check that!”

Before the suspension, Elbakyan already started archiving Sci-Hub’s tweets and responses. Not just for the historical record but also to use in court, where they will be used as evidence.

“I collected these responses and forwarded them to my lawyer in India, Nilesh Jain. We were planning to read them aloud in court to prove that Sci-Hub should not be blocked,” Elbakyan tells us.

While there are some academics who would prefer to see Sci-Hub gone, the site is supported by researchers all over the world. This is no different in India, where many scholars don’t have access to expensive subscriptions.

Damaging Paywalls

A lot of the top research papers are hidden behind paywalls, which is a continued source of frustration for many.

“The only reason students from egregiously underfunded institutions in India manage to do quality research is because of platforms like Sci-Hub and Libgen. If you block them, you block research. Period,” writes Sushmita Pati, Assistant Professor of Political Science.

TorrentFreak reached out to Twitter asking for clarification on their decision to ban the account but the company didn’t immediately reply.

Questions Remain, as does Sci-Hub

As far as we know, Sci-Hub’s Twitter account didn’t link directly to infringing content. There were some tweets linking to the Sci-Hub site, but these have been around for a long time. Nothing seems to have changed substantially.

Twitter is known to terminate repeat infringers but Elbakyan notes that this account suspension came out of the blue. At this point, it’s unclear if Twitter acted on its own or if rightsholders complained.

With Sci-Hub removed from Twitter, the site has lost its presence on the social media platform. However, whether that will do much to stop researchers from accessing the site is doubtful. If recent history has shown anything, it’s that increased legal pressure on the site only increases its popularity .

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

On December 21, 2020, academic publishers Elsevier, Wiley, and American Chemical Society filed a lawsuit demanding that Indian ISPs block access to Sci-Hub and Libgen.

The companies accuse the platforms of engaging in large-scale copyright infringement and note that preventing citizens of India from accessing the platforms is the only real option available to prevent their rights from being further abused.

In similar blocking applications, there has been relatively little difficulty in getting the court onside. All have targeted torrent and streaming sites offering movies, TV shows, and similar content without permission. However, while the case against Sci-Hub and Libgen is materially similar, there are additional factors that make the case more complex.

Protests By Scientists, Academics, Teachers and Students

As reported this week, scientists, academics, teachers and students have been applying pressure to have their voices heard in the case. According to them, any blocking of Sci-Hub and Libgen would amount to a denial of access to information crucial to the wellbeing of not only the scientific and research communities but also of India as a whole.

During a hearing yesterday at the Delhi High Court, the publishers hoped to obtain an order to have the platforms and their many domains blocked. However, the presiding judge listened to the calls of the scientific community and agreed that a delay to allow more detailed consideration would be appropriate in this case.

“It is an issue of public importance. It’s very important to the scientific community,” said Justice JR Midha.

Representations of Scientific Community Will Be Heard

The Court’s decision to delay the hearing for around six weeks came following intervention applications filed by nineteen scientists , including a virologist and several physicists specializing in multiple research areas, plus the Delhi Science Forum and Knowledge Commons .

Arguing that open access to scientific research is absolutely vital for the advancement of scientific knowledge, the scientists believe that the publishers are making excessive profits while effectively restricting access only to the “elite institutions” that can afford their prices.

“Unfortunately, scientific publication is controlled by an oligopoly of publishers who charge exorbitant fees and practice anti-competitive business models that seriously hamper the ability of the scientific community to access and share research,” they write.

According to Bar and Bench , Senior Advocate Amit Sibal appeared for the publishing houses and Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for Sci-Hub. The scientists were represented by Advocate Jawahar Raja and Advocate Rohit Sharma appeared for Delhi Science Forum.

After consideration, the Court rejected pleas for the sites to blocked immediately and instead ordered pleadings to be completed within the next six weeks.

According to SpicyIP , Sci-Hub received a two-week extension to fulfill its procedural obligations and was granted permission to file an application for exemption from formal compliances. This is due to the unusual nature of the case and Sci-Hub founder Alexandra Elbakyan currently living in Russia.

Interestingly, the publication further notes that while there is an arrangement to prevent any of the publishers’ content from appearing on Sci-Hub while the matter is under consideration, a request to have this ‘ban’ extended to Libgen was rejected by the Court. Libgen is reportedly yet to be properly served by the publishers, excluding it from the interim direction.

The case will now be heard on February 23, 2021 (link to order here )

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

Private torrent sites with Danish roots have long been the go-to place for file-sharers in Denmark, but that changed rapidly in recent weeks.

After a series of enforcement actions and legal threats, ‘all’ local trackers are gone.

Arrests

The trouble started in October last year when DanishBits suddenly went offline . At the time, several sources informed us that the owner had been arrested and these claims were later confirmed by the police.

Acting on a complaint from local piracy group Rights Alliance , the State Prosecutor for Serious Economic Crime (SØIK) arrested a 33-year-old Danish man in Morocco. And that wasn’t the only site that was targeted.

Law enforcement also went after the private tracker Nordicbits. The authorities identified a 69-year-old Danish man as the operator. The man, who resided in Spain, was apprehended by local police in September and passed away a few weeks later as the result of an illness.

Other Sites Tooks Over

The shutdown of these sites was a major blow to the local piracy ecosystem but it didn’t take long before other sites stepped up . Both Asgaard and ShareUniversity opened their doors to new members, resulting in an explosive growth of these sites.

This is a common pattern that we have seen over and over again. This time, however, the replacements didn’t last.

Rights Alliance increased the pressure on the remaining trackers, urging them to give up their illegal activities. If not, they would get the same treatment as DanishBits and NordicBits. This looming threat of legal action ultimately proved too much. A few weeks ago we reported that Asgaard had decided to shut down voluntarily .

“The thought of having to risk the doorbell ringing one day for a visit from the police overshadows the coziness of running this project. We will not expose you to that. Or ourselves. We have therefore chosen to close the ASGAARD project,” Asgaard’s staff said.

‘All’ Sites Shut Down

Soon after, ShareUniversity decided to throw in the towel as well. This means that all popular Danish trackers are effectively offline, leaving tens of thousands of users ‘homeless’.

Rights Alliance confirms that the shutdown of the last illegal Danish pirate services is a massive victory. Director Maria Fredenslund is delighted with the outcome, which the group has worked on for many years.

Result of 10 Years of Work

“We have worked hard to get rid of illegal services rooted in Denmark. It is the fruit of more than 10 years of dedicated work, that it is now a reality that for the first time there are no Danish illegal services, which is a huge victory for the Danish rights holders,” she says.

“Meanwhile, we are of course aware that new smaller pirate services may emerge on an ongoing basis, which will try to find a foothold. But it is our clear expectation that with these latest developments, we have drawn a line under the Danish-anchored illegal services,” Fredenslund adds.

Declaring victory on pirates is always tricky, as some may see it as a challenge to start something new. However, such an endeavor won’t be without risk.

Remaining Vigilant

Rights Alliance is aware of this, and it knows that estranged pirates can find their way to foreign sites as well. However, it hopes that their efforts will have made a sizeable impact on the long-term piracy rate.

Meanwhile, the group is encouraging the Government’s SØIK’s IP-Task Force to keep up the pressure. Now that Danish sites are gone, law enforcement has the room to focus more on users.

“It is extremely important that the Task Force continues its good work, and now focuses on the committed users who are constantly looking for new ways to share illegal content,” Fredenslund says.

“The Task Force has already proved to be extremely effective and impactful in closing down the illegal services, and we can see from the various platforms that it resonates with the users,” she adds.

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

Over the years we have reported on numerous ‘speculative invoicing’ schemes where copyright holders demand money from alleged copyright infringers.

This includes hundreds of thousands of settlement offers that were sent to suspected pirates, but we have also seen similar threats against people who use copyrighted photos on their personal sites.

The issue with these schemes isn’t the fact that rightsholders are enforcing their copyrights. That’s something they are entitled to do. It’s often the aggressive and sometimes even extortion-like nature of the threats that’s problematic.

Yesterday, comedian “Ozzy Man Reviews” shared one of his recent experiences on this front. With millions of subscribers on YouTube , Facebook , and other social media, Ozzy Man has a dedicated following. But, it’s not just people interested in his entertaining videos keeping an eye on his work.

‘Pirated’ Chinchilla Clip

After posting a new compilation commenting on some ‘ relaxing animals ‘, the Aussie comedian received a notification from Facebook that the video had been removed after a copyright holder complained. As it turns out, the 20-second clip of a chilling chinchilla was the culprit here.

While there are fair use defenses for this type of video, the takedown request by itself is justified. However, there is more to the story.

The chinchilla clip was originally shot by Instagram user ompt_gram but the takedown request came from someone else. As it turns out, it is at least partly ‘owned’ by the Facebook page “Go Animals” and that page is operated by the digital video marketing outfit “Creative Stage”.

Because takedown requests on social media may eventually lead to heavy account penalties, Ozzy Man hoped to resolve the matter. The good news was that Creative Stage was also open to retract the claim, but at quite a steep price.

$10,000 to Retract Claim

“Your violation caused the company damages and in order to retract we demand to receive a monetary compensation of $10,000,” a representative from Creative Stage wrote back.

Needless to say, this wasn’t how Ozzy Man expected the release of his first video of the year to go.

“I immediately responded to the attorney representing Creation Stage/Go Animals and outlined that the amount they were asking for is unjustified. It’s very similar to Speculative Invoicing,” Ozzy Man informs TorrentFreak.

Creator Not Involved

While the comedian admits that he didn’t clear the rights, he points out that the original creator of the clip didn’t have a say either. This is not uncommon as many viral videos are ‘exploited’ by licensing companies.

“The person who originally shot the video should get a say. I think it’s unclear to many people submitting videos to licensing companies or Facebook publishers online that the company is also asking to be a rights manager or an ‘attorney-in-fact’ for their content,” Ozzy Man tells us.

Account at Risk

The comedian shared his frustration on Facebook and stressed that this takedown put his entire account at risk. However, he had no intention of paying $10,000 for a 20-second chinchilla clip.

In theory, he could rely on a fair-use or fair-dealing defense, but copyright holders are usually not sensitive to that. This also applies to Creative Stage which showed little sympathy for the ‘trouble’ their takedown caused.

“I spoke to them in detail about the effect their DMCA takedown legal action had on me and it did not faze them. Takedowns trigger both YouTube and Facebook to penalize an account instantly by default. This includes restrictions on features, loss of monetization, and throttling of organic reach. It’s brutal,” Ozzy Man says.

The Web of Infringements

Stepping back, the above nicely illustrates the copyright complications many online creators and regular social media users face today, often without knowing. When all ‘infringements would be removed from social media and user-generated video platforms, very little remains.

Ozzy Man was in the wrong when he used the clip, but the same can be said for millions of others who post mashups, reviews, edits, or commentary online. Not to mention the millions of copyrighted photos that are published every day, without permission.

“It doesn’t get easier as you get bigger or more popular either, you simply end up with more sharks around ya,” Ozzy man notes.

Paying License Fees

The comedian is not an outright pirate though. He tries to balance the risk of using multiple source videos and also pays licensing fees for many clips.

“For instance, I do pay established licensing companies like Jukin Media and ViralHog. On average I’ll pay $100 USD for a clip. If I’m doing a compilation commentary and license 6 videos for 600 bucks USD, I know that my risk level goes down.

“And if these companies are genuinely sharing a cut of the financial pie with the original posters that shot the content then it’s nothing but a win for all of us.”

Ozzy Man’s problem isn’t so much the payment part but if he does pay for something, a share of that should go to the original creator. Right now, there are too many third-parties exploiting others’ content.

Have Some Ethics

“If ya looking to start a video licensing company online in 2021 have some damn ethics, integrity and discretion in how you operate and assess ‘damages’ or ‘market harm’.

“I think the idea of ‘market harm’ over a chinchilla being groomed video is ludicrous. It’s farcical. Don’t go gung-ho in the Content ID systems on YouTube, Facebook, etc and expect zero criticism for doing so.”

It appears that after making the matter public, things moved in the right direction. An army of followers defended the comedian and after a few hours the video was restored. We have to wonder, however, if the same would have happened to someone with a smaller following.

Ozzy Man is happy with the outcome and confirms to us that he didn’t pay anything. While his risk assessment with the chinchilla clip was a bit off, this doesn’t mean that he will stop using unlicensed clips on occasion.

“I hate being restricted, so I’m always gonna take SOME risks in the pursuit of comedy gold,” he concludes.

Enjoy.

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

Due to their nature, pirate IPTV service operators and resellers tend to operate in the shadows, cautiously guarding their own identities and those of their users.

Aside from the few cases where such entities find themselves targeted by legal action or even the police, exposure is a rare event. However, a couple of years ago a new threat emerged after several IPTV providers were targeted by a hacker.

High Profile Attacks Against Helix and PrimeStreams

Late 2019, we reported on a pair of attacks against two of the more recognizable IPTV brands on the market. Warning signs first appeared on the homepage of Helix Hosting, when the alleged hacker revealed that the provider had been given the option to pay a “small amount” in order to prevent all of his customers’ details from being leaked online.

On top, the hacker threatened to leak the personal details of at least one owner or staff member, along with their names, addresses, phone numbers and IP addresses. There was no question that this was a serious problem for Helix. But the hacker wasn’t happy with just a single target.

Just days later, PrimeStreams was under attack by the same person, who again demanded that a ransom be paid to prevent customer details from being leaked online. The amount was significant – $70k payable in bitcoin – but that was not the full extent of the attacks. Several other providers were targeted too, always with the same modus operandi but differing amounts.

TF previously received information on extortion demands down to around a single bitcoin, with the hacker appearing to tailor the amount based on the size of the provider or reseller’s customer base. What was clear, however, is that many attacks were going unreported in public, most probably due to the sensitive nature of the businesses being targeted.

New Warnings: More Hacks, More Extortion

With so many hacks appearing in a short space of time, those under attack began to suspect that a common vector was being exploited by the hacker. Very early on, at least one provider publicly suggested that billing software (provided by WHMCS Smarters and used by hundreds perhaps thousands of providers/sellers) could’ve been part of the problem.

A new announcement by a moderator of Reddit’s /r/IPTV community is now putting more meat on the bones that supports that theory while putting more worrying information into the public domain.

“Over the last couple years numerous IPTV providers were hacked by someone exploiting the WHMCS billing module. Some major providers paid up to $70k USD to the hacker and some of these exploits were covered on Torrent Freak. The hacker has probably hit at least 50 smaller IPTV providers, maybe more, that’s only the ones we know of, always asking for Bitcoin as a ransom,” the moderator reveals .

Also of interest is that the hacker reportedly caused damage to the sites in order to pile on more pressure to pay. But of course, those targeted didn’t have the luxury of seeking legal support or even protection from the police, so the extortion scheme continued and the pressure mounted for a while, before eventually tailing off.

Unfortunately, the hacker appears to have resumed his activities in recent months and members of the IPTV community are now pooling their resources to gather information on the individual and sound the alarm. The allegations coming out now are a concern, to say the least.

“He knows the IPTV business and has inside info that most wouldn’t,” the warning continues. “But here is the most important thing you should be aware of. He knows Smarters better than many. Ask yourself why.”

This theme, that the hacker could have some connection to Smarters, however obscure, continues with additional allegations that seem to suggest more than just a casual relationship.

“The [Reddit /r/iptv/] mod team has seen substantial evidence that points to this hacker being someone involved with Smarters, possibly on their staff, or related in some way to their operation. Seems to be a strong connection.”

“We are NOT accusing Smarters, but we urge you to use CAUTION if dealing with them especially if it involves server access. Don’t ever provide them passwords to your servers for any reason. He will know,” the warning adds.

WHMCS Smarters Responds to Allegations

Given the potential severity of the allegations, TorrentFreak contacted WHMCS Smarters for a response and a statement on whether the company would be prepared to carry out a security audit to check for any issues of concern.

Company owner Amanpreet Singh responded quickly, thanked us for bringing the matter to his attention, and assured us that he had discussed the matter with his team and had come up with several security recommendations.

– Always use a strong password and keep changing it after a few months
– Use the SSL (HTTPS): Always on HTTPS
– If you have WordPress installed at the front then ensure there are no unknown plugins
– Change your server Access Passwords once Smarters has finished the installation.
– File permissions should be accurate

In our initial contact, Singh told us that he wasn’t sure what more he could say, since he has no idea whether the allegations raised by the Reddit moderation team are true. In response, we again asked whether he would commit to carrying out a security audit within the company as part of an investigation.

“There is no chance of the hacker being involved with Smarters,” Singh informs TF.

“I have already discussed this with my team and there is nothing to be worried about at our end. My real brother and cousin brother and my one sister are working as team leaders and they are responsible for the installation and updating of billing panels.

“The second major thing is if we change the passwords then there is nothing to be worried about. I told my team to force the clients to change the password when the installation is done.”

Paying a Ransom Doesn’t Guarantee The Hacker Will Withdraw

Considering the very nature of blackmail, paying a ransom to a hacker may seem like a good idea at the time but when easily duplicated digital information is involved or attack vectors remain available, there’s no guarantee that a hacker will honor his or her side of the bargain. Indeed, according to the Reddit moderator (who has good connections in the IPTV community), paying up may not be the end of the story.

“Don’t pay the hacker if he hacks your site cuz it won’t do you any good. He has hit many people several times. Comes back for more, too. It’s no guarantee that he won’t leak your info if you pay him,” he adds.

“Don’t pay this asshole if he hits you. [By the way] he can hack the newest WHMCS version if you give Smarters any server passwords. You were warned.”

Finally, it’s claimed that members of the IPTV community have additional evidence up their collective sleeves but are holding back from publishing now, in order to protect sensitive information. However, they aren’t ruling out revealing that in the future, if the hacker persists.

In response to the report of additional information being available, Singh is offering his help, should IPTV providers need it.

“If they have particular evidence then I would ask [them] to share it with me then I can help [them] with it more,” he concludes.

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

As one of the most iconic gaming manufacturers in the world, Nintendo has been fighting piracy for decades.

The company has an in-house anti-piracy division that signals the latest threats to steer enforcement actions in the right direction.

In recent years it’s gone after sites and stores that offer pirated games and has assisted in the criminal prosecution against alleged members of the hacking group Team-Xecutuer. However, the smaller fish are not being ignored either.

Nintendo Targets Non-profit Fangames

A few days ago, Nintendo’s legal department sent DMCA notices to the game publishing community Game Jolt . The site, where hobbyists and indie developers share their creations for free, was notified that hundreds of fangames infringed Nintendo’s trademarks.

The takedown spree, which was published publicly by Game Jolt co-founder and CEO Yaprak DeCarmine, notes that the games in question use copies of Nintendo’s intellectual property without permission. Game Jolt allegedly profits from this.

“These web pages display images of Nintendo’s video game characters in connection with unauthorized online games that copy the characters, music, and other features of Nintendo’s video games.

“The web site at gamejolt.com generates revenue from advertising banners displayed on the site and advertisements played while users wait for the games to load,” the takedown notices add.

379 Games

This certainly isn’t the first time that Nintendo has targeted fangames, but the scope of this recent effort is massive. In total, the two notices posted by Game Jolt target 379 game URLs, which were all taken down. Game over.

The developers of the games and many of their fans were taken by surprise. Players were suddenly greeted with a 404 error message like this one and developers received an alert notifying them that their game had been targeted.

The mass removal is a hot topic in the Game Jolt community. Many people don’t understand why Nintendo would target some of its most dedicated fans. That includes the indie developers who spent weeks or months on their projects.

Game developer ‘Eeveeloverdoesgaming,’ who publishes several Nintendo-inspired games, wasn’t targeted but summarizes the general feeling towards Nintendo quite well.

No Sympathy for Nintendo

“They’ll get no sympathy from me, this isn’t the first time they’ve pulled a stunt like this. They’ve made it clear they hate their fans and repeat it time and time again never learning from it.”

The developer will continue to work on his “Five Nights At Team HQ series” but fears that it will be targeted eventually. That doesn’t stop the developer though, and he encourages others to simply flood the Internet with copies.

“Nintendo if you think taking down everyone’s games will help your image and get people to buy more of your games then you’re sorely mistaken! I’ll keep making and reuploading fan games even if you try to take them down, so DEAL WITH IT!

“All people who have copies of the fangames that were taken down take them and reupload them all over the internet so they stay up no matter what!”

Reuploaded

Although some developers prefer to lie low and stay out of Nintendo’s hairs for the foreseeable future, some have indeed brought their games back to life. For example, ‘Jeb Yoshi’, the developer of “Five Nights at Yoshi’s,” re-uploaded it with ads disabled.

“After looking into it, I believe the fact there was profit being earned from advertisements on the game page was the reason for the takedown of this game among countless others,” the dev writes.

‘Jeb Yoshi’ refers to Nintendo’s mention of the advertising element in the DMCA takedown request, which is mentioned by other people as well. They are not sure whether that’s indeed the case though. “Let’s hope this goes well,” the dev wrote on Discord.

In pursuit of more clarity TorrentFreak reached out to Nintendo for a comment but, at the time of writing, we have yet to receive a response. We also reached out to Game Jolt to hear their thoughts on Nintendo’s DMCA requests but the company didn’t immediately reply.

We will update this article if more information becomes available.

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

Under US copyright law, Internet providers must terminate the accounts of repeat infringers “in appropriate circumstances.”

In the past such drastic action was rare, but with the backing of legal pressure, ISPs are increasingly being held to this standard.

Repeat Infringer Lawsuits

Several major music industry companies including Artista Records, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music, and Warner Records, have filed lawsuits against some of the largest U.S. Internet providers. This also includes Bright House , which is owned by Charter.

Through this lawsuit , the music companies hope to win hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. While that may sound high, last year a federal jury handed down a billion-dollar award in a lawsuit against Cox Communications.

False DMCA Notices Counterclaim

Bright House would like to avoid this fate at all costs. In a countersuit, filed in July, the ISP hit back accusing the record labels of sending inaccurate and deceptive takedown notices. This is in violation of the DMCA as well as the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the company argued.

A month later, the Internet provider asked the court for permission to add the RIAA and its anti-piracy partner MarkMonitor to the suit, as they are central to the wrongful conduct.

The record labels were not happy with these accusations and asked the court to dismiss the claims. While it’s possible that some incorrect notices were sent, they argued that Bright House has no standing as the company failed to take any action based on their notices.

No Disconnections, No Harm

This defense points back to the basis of the “repeat infringer” issue. The labels sued the ISP because it didn’t disconnect persistent pirates. So if there were false notices, there was no real harm done.

After hearing both sides, US District Court Judge Mary Scriven decided over the matter this week, clearly siding with the record labels.

“Bright House alleges that Plaintiffs violated Section 512(f) of the DMCA by sending knowingly false infringement notices. This counterclaim fails as a matter of law because Bright House does not allege that it removed or disabled access to any allegedly infringing content in response to the notices.”

Judge Scriven notes that this case is similar to the one Charter filed against several record labels. That case was dismissed as well a few weeks ago, as Charter didn’t show that it disconnected subscribers based on false DMCA notices.

False Notices Claim Dismissed

“Bright House’s counterclaim suffers from the same fatal flaw and is therefore due to be dismissed,” the District Court Judge writes.

The ISP’s second claim, that the labels violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) fails as well, according to the court.

A proper FDUTPA claim requires Bright House to argue that the false notices were sent as part of “trade or commerce,” which generally involves advertising or offering services, property, or something else of value. That’s not the case here, Judge Scriven notes.

FDUTPA Claim Fails As Well

“The FDUTPA claim is defective because the infringement notices do not constitute ‘advertising, soliciting, providing, offering, or distributing’ any ‘thing of value’ to Bright House, its subscribers, or any other party.

“Plaintiffs sent the infringement notices as part of an alleged effort to enforce their legal rights in recordings and compositions they claimed to own,” Judge Scriven writes.

This means that both counterclaims are dismissed. Bright House also put in a separate request to enforce the same claims against the RIAA and its anti-piracy partner RightCorp, but this is futile now that the underlying arguments don’t hold up.

The case will now continue to trial without any counterclaims. Bright House will still have to defend itself against the repeat infringer claims and copyright infringement allegations.

—

A copy of US District Court Judge Mary Scriven’s order is available here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. We have some good VPN deals here for the holidays.

During December, on the day world heavyweight champion Anthony Joshua was preparing to retain all three of his belts by defeating Bulgaria’s Kubrat Pulev at Wembley, someone looking to watch the fight cheaply asked which pirate IPTV service would be the best to choose.

From the discussions seen by TF, this person had already subscribed to a package with another provider. However, for reasons that aren’t entirely clear, after handing over money to that supplier and receiving the login details, all that appeared on the screen was…well…nothing. It was blank, no EPG, and certainly no picture.

Faced with a seller that had suddenly decided to stop responding to support questions by email, the person was directed to a Discord channel. With no experience of Discord, this additional hurdle for an individual with a busy schedule and a small child was an unneeded hassle. Nevertheless, after working out how to get Discord working and getting advice through the channel, support was forthcoming.

Initial advice suggested that his Internet service provider may be blocking the service. This is common in the UK so the customer was advised to sign up to a VPN, which in the vast majority of cases circumvents ISP blocking and allows access to the service. The increasingly frustrated user was provided with instructions to install the VPN on a Amazon Firestick or similar set-top device, but as the owner of straightforward smart TV, didn’t have the suggested hardware.

Reaching a point where he “couldn’t be bothered” to jump through any more hoops, the customer sought out a new IPTV provider, which according to online forums had performed well in the past. However, it transpired this service also required a VPN but was offering a workaround to exploit a VPN provider’s free trial.

Nevertheless, a Firestick or similar was still advised and several hours later, after obtaining one and installing the necessary software, the service was up and running, ready for the fight. As things turned out, everything ran without a hitch but the hoops jumped through to get there were certainly noted.

Messing around for hours on a Saturday in preparation for a 45-minute fight isn’t everyone’s idea of fun. Not to mention that it took not one but two IPTV subscriptions to get the desired result. Add in that the free VPN ‘trick’ no longer works and it’s not hard to see how some people (albeit not all) might be put off by the experience.

Indeed, if we switch around the circumstances a little and sprinkle on some creative license, this doesn’t sound a million miles away from the hoops that some legitimate providers require their customers to jump through in order to watch an event. If we add in all the of the pirate costs, presuming they aren’t to be spread over future viewing experiences, there aren’t many savings either.

Of course, more seasoned IPTV pirates would’ve already had their ducks in a row. They’ll have done all of the research, have a couple of providers to choose from, the necessary hardware already, plus a VPN kicking around that could be put to further use. But for the more casual or one-off type user, none of this represents a particularly streamlined or enjoyable experience.

This state of play is largely due to the disruption activities of copyright holders and the authorities. Where once it was simply a case of visiting a website, signing up, paying and watching, accessing an IPTV service today is a much more complicated affair.

More public services, with a website and the option to pay simply by PayPal, for example, are much rarer. Indeed, it is widely believed that these sellers and resellers are likely to attract negative attention much more quickly, and that certainly isn’t conducive to a long-term business relationship for anyone involved.

On the other hand, those with more secure operational setups, with contact only available through invite-only chat channels and payments accepted only via cryptocurrencies, may prove to be much more reliable and durable. However, these present a whole new set of barriers to entry, ones that are likely to put off novices, casual customers, and/or those with less time on their hands.

With the majority of users falling into these categories, it’s not hard to make the connection between various anti-piracy strategies, enforcement actions, and other disruption activities favored by the police, for example. All of these entities are under no illusions that piracy can be easily stopped. However, with strategies that are designed to disrupt in any number of ways, the aim is to create enough irritation and inconveniences among customers that cause costs to rise and valuable time to be expended.

Somewhere along the way, it’s possible that the pirate business proposition starts to feel less of a bargain. Couple that with reduced prices and more convenience for official offerings and the gap closes further still. None of this may be enough to make pirate IPTV a thing of the past but with competition in the form of disruption and more sensible pricing, the playing field could improve for rightsholders in 2021.

Until the next set of pirate innovations, of course.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. We have some good VPN deals here for the holidays.