Every year, thousands of “Doe” defendants are sued for allegedly sharing pirated videos via BitTorrent.

Most of these lawsuits follow a common pattern. The copyright holders track down an infringing IP-address, uncover the associated account holder through a subpoena, to then offer this person a settlement.

Defendants who ignore or deny the settlement offers will often be named. And if they fail to respond after that, the copyright holder will ask the court to issue a default judgment.

More Than an IP-address

In recent months Hawaii-based attorney Kerry Culpepper has, on occasion, broken with this pattern by bringing in additional evidence. For example, he went after several users of the torrent site YTS, after the site’s operator shared database information to resolve his own legal troubles.

In a case filed at a federal court in Texas last week, Culpepper continues down this path. While this case doesn’t rely on YTS information, it is connected to a previous lawsuit where ‘additional’ information surfaced.

Phone Store Lawsuit

Earlier this year, we reported that the company behind the movie Hunter Killer filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Verizon retailer VICTRA . According to that complaint, employees of the phone store promoted the use of pirate apps including Popcorn Time and Showbox.

The claim was backed up by testimony from a VICTRA customer who stated that an employee named Ms. Boylan recommended and helped him to install Popcorn Time to watch free movies. This case was eventually dismissed after a few months, likely following an out-of-court settlement. However, it wasn’t without consequence for the employee.

In the complaint filed in Texas last week, Hunter Killer writes that Boylan was fired by VICTRA for promoting and distributing movie piracy apps. While that must have come as a big hit, the movie company isn’t showing mercy.

Fired Employee Faces Piracy Lawsuit

On the contrary, Hunter Killer Productions accuses Boylan of both contributory and direct copyright infringement. The first allegation is related to the defendant’s promotion of Popcorn Time during her time with her former employer.

“Defendant Boylan promoted movie piracy apps at the VICTRA TX Store to her customers for the purposes of infringing copyright protected content,” the complaint reads, adding that she did so to increase sales and boost her compensation.

The allegation is backed up by the aforementioned testimony from a customer, who said that the defendant recommended and installed Popcorn Time on a newly purchased Samsung Galaxy tablet.

“Defendant Boylan promoted Popcorn Time by telling members of the general public, including Gerard Prado, that it could be used to watch ‘free movies’ at the TX Store on or around March 5, 2019.

“Defendant Boylan installed Popcorn Time on the tablet device of Gerard Prado while he was at the TX Store so that Gerard Prado could watch content in violation of copyright laws,” the complaint adds.

‘Defendant Also Downloaded the Film’

These allegations are just part of the picture. According to Hunter Killer, the defendant also downloaded and shared the movie herself. This claim is backed up by an IP-address that was observed sharing a pirated copy of Hunter Killer last December.

“Defendant Boylan downloaded, reproduced and shared copies of the Work under the file name ‘Hunter Killer (2018) [WEBRip] [720p] [YTS.AM]’ multiple times on December 27, 2019 from the IP address 174.237.5.2.”

The IP-address is linked to a Verizon cellular phone Internet service account in Boylan’s name. According to the complaint, this means that she likely downloaded the file herself.

In addition to Boylan, the movie company also accuses five John Doe defendants of direct copyright infringement by downloading the film. These people have yet to be identified through a subpoena.

Hunter Killer Productions hopes to recoup the damages these copyright infringements reportedly caused. In theory, this could reach $150,000 in statutory damages per person, but it’s likely that one or more defendants will settle out of court.

—

A copy of Hunter Killer’s complaint against Boylan and the five Doe defendants 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.

So-called ‘copyright trolling’ campaigns against alleged file-sharers is huge business in both the United States and Europe.

The goal is to have courts order ISPs to hand over the personal details behind an IP address so that subscribers can be put under pressure to pay a settlement or face punishing legal action. In Denmark, especially considering its relatively small population, such schemes are now extremely prevalent. But all is not well for the main players.

Cases Undermined Due to Rookie Mistakes

It’s not always easy to tell the difference between a regular copyright lawsuit and one filed by a supposed ‘copyright troll’. However, when middle-man companies appear in the mix, those which appear to have no place in the proceedings other than to provide some kind of shield for the real rightsholders, red flags start to get raised. For those on the receiving end, however, that’s not always bad news.

As reported in April, a High Court in Denmark threw out three copyright infringement cases against alleged pirates. The problem was that Copyright Management Services, a UK middle-man company working with Danish law firm NJORD Law, attempted to squeeze around US$1,000 from the defendants to prevent further action from their movie company partners.

Unfortunately for them, however, the Eastern High Court found that CMS had absolutely no right to sue. As a result, the cases were dismissed and the opportunists were sent on their way. But that wasn’t the end of the road.

Dozens and Dozens of Cases Collapse

The findings of the Eastern High Court created momentum. Since then, it’s believed that around 100 other cases have been dismissed on the same grounds, including three reported by the Court of Frederiksberg this week.

The three cases emerged following judgments obtained against three defendants, one of whom reportedly torrented an adult movie and another London Has Fallen, a common title in similar lawsuits elsewhere. After failing to appear last year to defend themselves, each was ordered to pay 7,500 kroner (US$1,237) in default damages.

All three failed to pay, so each found themselves pursued through the bailiff’s court by the ‘plaintiffs’. However, the court in Frederiksberg has booted out all three cases ( 1 , 2 , 3 ), referencing earlier cases that found that CMS had no right to sue.

In fact, not only did the court reference the failed case in April, it also referred to another 39 rulings by the same court and another 60 handed down by the Copenhagen City Court, all of which found that CMS had no right to bring these copyright cases as it had no standing to be the plaintiff.

Hundreds of Thousands of Danes Potentially Affected

These types of lawsuits have been ongoing for several years in Denmark and despite warnings, very little has been done to prevent their spread. In 2018, ISPs Telenor and Telia put up a fight but the damage had already been done.

According to a report by Berlingske this week, at least 2,500 Danes could be affected and potentially up to 200,000.

“It’s a big money machine where you treat the courts as ATMs,” lawyer Allan Ohms told the publication. “Njord Law Firm is a reputable law firm, so I do not understand why they are involved.”

The Berlingske report catalogs many horrors, including the targeting of an 84-year-old woman with dementia and a 41-year-old man who had to sit in court while being accused of downloading porn, because his age and gender “matched the profile” of someone who would’ve carried out the crime. The case was dismissed but a family member recalls that the case took its toll.

“I clearly remember when he came home after the trial. He was completely devastated. As an ordinary citizen one stands completely defenseless in this situation. That can simply not be right,” the person said.

But many people have already settled with NJORD law and its apparently shadowy partners, about which very little is known.

Lawyer Nikolaj Linneballe said that no one really knows who is pulling the strings behind the scenes and, importantly, who is collecting all the money from cases that should have never been brought. He believes the settlement money should be returned when it has been shown that plaintiffs had no right to bring a case but whether that will ever happen is unknown.

Court Suggests That The Lawsuits May Be Illegal

As reported by Berlingske , the Court of Frederiksberg appears to be of the opinion that the lawsuits in these ‘false plaintiff’ cases may be illegal. Indeed, the suggestion is that Danes affected by the action may be able to file a claim for damages via a criminal complaint.

While that may be the case, by design these middle-man companies seem primed to collapse like chocolate teapots should the battle turn sour. But nonetheless, things are certainly in a mess.

Aside from CMS’s lack of standing to bring any of these cases, NJORD law stands accused of requesting an arbitrary amount of 7,500 kroner to settle each case, regardless of the costs incurred in the matter. This raises the question of how “real” these claims for compensation are, despite the fact they should’ve never been brought at all.

“[The] amount is arbitrarily fixed for the occasion, and not an amount where there is an expression of a real claim for compensation, remuneration or allowance,” the court previously said, noting that the actions constitute a potentially significant “legal security problem” for Danes.

One of the problems is the starting point of the law firm and its partners. Those accused are considered guilty unless they are able to prove their innocence, which in most cases is not possible, since the companies involved hold all of the ‘evidence’, including who is supposed to have shared what, when, and with whom.

Indeed, the collection and presentation of evidence is held in a tightly closed-loop, since it’s all handled non-transparently by entities acting in concert with the plaintiffs and rightsholders. The defendants have no access to the audit trails so are faced with the problem of arguing against a spreadsheet.

In many respects, copyright-trolling has rarely been any different. The smoke and mirrors are fairly standard, as are the strong-arm tactics. But maybe Denmark has had enough now, which is usually a signal for the trolls to move to another territory and start the same thing all over again.

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

Earlier this year Texas-based model Deniece Waidhofer sued Thothub for copyright infringement after the site’s users posted many of her ‘exclusive’ photos.

Soon after the complaint was filed Thothub went offline . This prompted Waidhofer to shift priorities.

In an amended complaint, submitted a few weeks ago, Thothub is no longer a defendant. Instead, the lawsuit now focuses on several sites and services that did business with the pirate site, including CDN provider Cloudflare.

Cosplay Models Join Case Against Cloudflare

Another significant change is that Waidhofer is no longer the sole plaintiff. She is now joined by two cosplay artists, Ryuu Lavitz and Margaret McGhee, better known as OMGcosplay . Together, these models have millions of online followers.

When the original case was filed, Lavitz and McGhee hadn’t registered their photos at the Copyright Office. Both submitted their registrations for hundreds of works in September, after which they were able to join the case.

In addition to removing Thothub as a defendant and adding two plaintiffs, some of the strongest allegations were stripped from the original complaint. Cloudflare is no longer alleged to be part of a RICO conspiracy but is accused of direct and contributory copyright infringement.

The models claim that Cloudflare has carved out a competitive niche by serving illegal pirate sites that other large CDN companies like Akamai Technologies would not. It ‘helps’ these sites by concealing the real IP-address and by ‘storing’ their content, it’s alleged.

Motion to Dismiss

Cloudflare replied to these allegations by pointing out that it’s merely a middleman. The company has no knowledge of the traffic that passes through its network and doesn’t store content permanently, in most cases, but simply makes temporary “cache” copies.

“Under Plaintiffs’ wildly expansive theory of liability, the owner of any computer connected to the Internet could potentially be exposed to unlimited liability,” Cloudflare argued, adding that the complaint doesn’t show bad “intent”.

Based on these and various other deficiencies, the CDN provider asked the court to dismiss the case. However, the models disagree and recently submitted several counterarguments.

‘Cloudflare Helps Pirate Sites’

The models argue that Cloudflare was aware of the copyright infringements on Thothub, but chose not to do anything. Instead, it helped the site to cope with vast amounts of traffic so it could stay online. That’s what the site does for other pirate sites as well.

“Cloudflare easily could have limited Thothub’s infringement simply by terminating service, or by not delivering URLs that it had already been notified contained infringing content. But Cloudflare stood behind Thothub instead, as it does regularly for pirates everywhere. Indeed, Cloudflare has made a cottage industry out of indulging pirates.”

The plaintiffs say that Cloudflare is liable for contributory copyright infringement. The company’s decision not to take action helped Thothub to stay online and operate more efficiently. That is enough to be held liable, the models argue, referencing the ALS Scan case against Cloudflare.

“Cloudflare enabled Thothub to be operated securely on a vast scale. The law recognizes this as a material contribution that, with knowledge, creates liability,” they write.

Thothub Alternatives Still use Cloudflare

Without Cloudflare, Thothub’s site would have been “overrun and crashed.” Although it may have come back, that ‘simple measure’ would have made a difference, at least briefly. Cloudflare, however, decided not to act and it does the same for many similar sites today.

“The Complaint identifies nearly two dozen other pirate sites — all Cloudflare clients — that are Thothub copycats, including one called Thothub.ru that is nearly a direct clone,” the plaintiffs write.

In addition to contributory infringement, the models also accuse the company of direct infringement. They argue that the CDN provider made copies of Thothub files on its own accord and continued copying works after takedown notices were sent.

The reply to Cloudflare’s motion to dismiss is filled with allegations that will eventually have to be backed up with evidence. In addition to focusing on the case at hand, it also references an EU report which concluded that 62% of the world’s top 500 pirate sites use Cloudflare.

Daily Stormer and 8Chan

And, as we predicted a few years ago , Cloudflare’s decision to ban The Daily Stormer is also being brought up.

“Despite serving most of the world’s top pirate sites, on information and belief, Cloudflare has never voluntarily terminated services to a customer for repeat copyright infringement. Cloudflare has, however, voluntarily terminated services for other customer sites, including the American Neo-Nazi group Daily Stormer and the conspiracy website 8chan,” the reply reads.

It is now up to the US District Court for the Central District of California to decide whether the case against Cloudflare should be dismissed, or if the models can pursue their claims at trial.

—

A copy of Cloudflare’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint is available here (pdf) and the reply from the models can be found here (pdf)

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

With millions of users uploading huge quantities of content every day, YouTube is the largest video platform on the planet.

Of course, not all of this content is licensed for upload and as a result, YouTube regularly finds itself at the center of copyright holder disputes. Usually, complaints are handled with a Content ID match or a straightforward takedown process but some content creators prefer to take things a little further.

Creator of TV Show Cheaters Takes Legal Action

Controversial reality TV show Cheaters deploys its own ‘Cheaters Detective Agency’ to carry out investigations on behalf of individuals who suspect their partners are committing adultery and similar infidelities. Created by writer Bobby Goldstein, Cheaters launched in 2000 and has reached season 19, airing on various legal TV outlets around the world.

However, there are many hundreds of Cheaters episodes available on YouTube too, uploaded by users in breach of copyright. Collectively these videos have been viewed millions of times and for Bobby Goldstein Productions (BGP), the owner and rightsholder of more than 227 Cheaters episodes, enough is enough.

In an application for a DMCA subpoena filed against YouTube in a Texas court, BGP attorney Jeffrey R. Bragalone is now seeking to obtain the identities of more than two dozen YouTube account holders who uploaded Cheaters episodes to the video platform, so that the company may enforce its rights.

DMCA Takedown Notice

The application begins by reminding YouTube of its legal position, noting that since it displayed and reproduced infringing episodes, it may be liable to hand over all of the profits it generated from them. Alternatively, under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), YouTube may be liable for statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringing work.

BGP’s attorney then issues a formal demand to YouTube, demanding that it immediately cease-and-desists from hosting and displaying the episodes in question, noting that failure to comply will be considered as evidence of willful intent in the event of a lawsuit.

At the time of writing and after testing a sample of the URLs listed by the company, the allegedly infringing videos (including the small selection in the image above) appear to remain live on YouTube but given the official nature of the complaint, that position is likely to change in the coming days. Nevertheless, a simple takedown won’t be enough to fulfill the requirements of the subpoena.

Disclose User Identities and Preserve Evidence

In the first instance, BGP is seeking to find out the identities behind the YouTube user accounts that uploaded the infringing videos. There are more than two dozen in total, some of which are dedicated to the show, some that offer various TV shows and movies, and others that appear to have uploaded episodes in a less organized fashion.

Regardless of type, BGP is demanding that YouTube provides documentation to show “all registration information, account information, billing information, payment information, or other identifying information associated with the YouTube accounts” including their “name(s), address(es), telephone number(s), email address(es), and account number(s) associated with each account, and the Internet Protocol addresses (including time stamps) used to create each account, access each account, or upload the material” for each of the supplied URLs.

In addition to user information, BGP is also seeking information that could be helpful should it file lawsuits against the listed YouTube users and potentially the platform itself in the unlikely event content isn’t taken down. The requested evidence includes the total page views and/or downloads of the infringing URLs/videos, plus an account of total revenues and gross profits relating to the display of the offending material, including all advertising and/or affiliate revenue.

“This information must be provided with accompanying documentation, including financial and other business records, supporting the responses given to these questions,” the DMCA subpoena application reads.

In addition, BGP is demanding that YouTube preserves all communications relating to the videos, including emails, voicemails and instant messaging, any and all related documents, network access and server activity logs, plus any other relevant information.

“Should you fail or refuse to take down the Subject Videos, our client will have no choice but to file a complaint against your company seeking immediate injunctive relief, as well as compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and costs,” BGP concludes.

After being filed earlier this week, the case was reviewed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap. In his order, he noted that BGP had complied with all of the components required to obtain a subpoena. So, in an order issued Wednesday, the Judge ordered YouTube to comply by supplying the information sought.

The related documents can be found here ( 1 , 2 , 3 . Judge’s order here )

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

After numerous lawsuits around the world, The Pirate Bay is perhaps the most-blocked pirate site on the planet.

In many regions the site is blocked by local ISPs and, as a result, millions of users have sought to visit the site via alternative means. While these can include VPNs and Tor, for example, the rise of proxy and mirror sites has been notable, since these provide seamless access to the torrent index at zero cost.

Prolonged Legal Battle in The Netherlands

The fight to block The Pirate Bay and its mirrors and proxies in the Netherlands has been particularly notable. Legal action was initiated by BREIN in 2010 and after a tortuous path, that even involved the EU Court of Justice, local courts eventually sided with the anti-piracy group.

However, the battle to have Pirate Bay proxies and mirrors took longer and was only settled this October . However, BREIN still sees these platforms as a risk and as a result, embarked on a project to target a large provider of both.

Piratebay-proxylist.net Targeted By BREIN

With several million visitors per month, Piratebay-proxylist.net developed an audience not only with residents of the Netherlands but also those in other regions (such as the UK) where ISPs are required to block The Pirate Bay.

Offering a list of domains from where the notorious index can be accessed (and also rating them, ostensibly by speed), the platform was of course a popular haunt for pirates. However, the show is now over following legal action by BREIN.

BREIN Announces Domain ‘Seizure’ and Large Settlement

In an announcement Friday, BREIN said that while it does what it can to close down proxy and mirror sites, including by filing requests with hosting providers, the existence of ISP blocking doesn’t preclude direct legal action against those who persistently offer proxy and mirror sites.

As a result it targeted the people behind Piratebay-proxylist.net, an action that has now resulted in the closure of the platform and an agreement to pay BREIN a sizeable amount in damages and compensation.

“[Piratebay-proxylist.net], a large-scale provider of proxies and mirrors to bypass the blocking of The Pirate Bay, has arranged with copyright protection foundation BREIN to pay 250,000 euros as compensation for the damage suffered and more than 30,000 euros in full compensation of costs,” BREIN says.

Domain Also ‘Seized By BREIN

BREIN says that as part of the settlement it has taken control of the Piratebay-proxylist.net domain. Indeed, at the time of writing the domain presents a detailed anti-piracy warning , explaining why the domain is no longer functional while issuing a warning to others.

“The content of this site has been blocked by order of the court, at the request of Stichting BREIN. This site provided access to the website The Pirate Bay, which offers illegally protected works of the rights holders represented by Stichting BREIN. This is unlawful and causes great damage to the entitled parties to (in particular) films, TV series, music, games and books,” the cautionary message reads, adding:

“WARNING : Any site that provides direct or indirect access to The Pirate Bay runs the significant risk of being blocked. The operators of that site risk criminal and / or civil penalties, such as large fines and damages.”

Proxies/Mirrors Generate Large Revenues, Receive Large Penalties

In common with many similar platforms, Piratebay-proxylist.net generated revenue from advertising and affiliate schemes. According to BREIN, the scale of its business is reflected in the size of the settlement the service is now required to pay the anti-piracy group.

“Where we can identify the data subjects [site operators] and hold them accountable, we will do so. That a lot of money is involved in this kind of illegal business is proven by this settlement of more than a quarter of a million euros,” says BREIN director Tim Kuik.

BREIN Also Reaches Settlement With eBook Pirate

While BREIN expends much effort in dealing with larger infringing platforms, it doesn’t shy away from targeting smaller entities too.

The anti-piracy group says that since the beginning of 2019, it has been writing to the administrators of several email groups that were being used to share pirated copies of eBooks, audiobooks, and music. Several administrators agreed to shut down and declare their operations over. It appears, however, that at least one was more stubborn, even after settling with BREIN.

“She raised money from members to pay the fine and started a new group on the same day that the statement was signed. In that group, this time with the help of social media, the administrator and the members insisted on anonymity and illegal ebooks were again exchanged,” BREIN explains.

When BREIN approached the individual again, she took her group offline. However, she wasn’t interested in paying a fine and ignored BREIN’s letters. That resulted in BREIN going to court where the judge ruled in the anti-piracy group’s favor, ordering the woman to pay 7,500 euros in fines and 19,644 euros in legal costs.

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

The Pirate Bay’s main .org domain has been unreachable for nearly a day now.

For most people, the site currently displays a CloudFlare error message across the entire site, with the CDN provider mentioning that a “gateway timeout” is causing the issue.

As usual, no further details are available to us and there is no known ETA for the site’s full return. However, judging from past experience, it’s likely a small technical issue that needs fixing.

The Pirate Bay has had quite a few stints of downtime over the years. The popular torrent site usually returns after several hours, but outages of more than a day have occurred as well.

Despite the downtime, there are still some options left for people to access the notorious torrent site.

TPB is still available via its .onion address on the Tor network, accessible using the popular Tor Browser, for example. The site’s Tor traffic goes through a separate server and works just fine. Several dedicated TPB proxies are still up as well.

The Pirate Bay team has a status page in the forums where people can check to see if an outage is affecting everyone or not. This also shows that the Tor version of the site is working fine, and that new torrents are still coming through.

The main .org domain will probably be back in action soon enough, although there are no guarantees. Torrentz2 , for example, disappeared a few weeks ago and still hasn’t returned. The .onion domain remains active but that hasn’t been updated with new content in nearly a week.

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

In recent months Denmark has lost two of its most popular pirate sites following police investigations.

Both Danishbit and Nordicbits went offline after the alleged operators were caught . This was a big hit to Danish torrent users, who generally prefer private torrent trackers over public indexers such as The Pirate Bay.

As is often the case with shutdowns, other sites have stepped in to take up the slack. For example, following the closure of Danishbits, both ShareUniversity and Asgaard opened their doors to members who were looking for a new home.

While the people running these sites were initially thrilled, their perspective changed last week when police confirmed their involvement and the arrest of the Danishbits operator. Making matters worse, law enforcement didn’t rule out that users could be identified as well.

Meanwhile, anti-piracy group Rights Alliance increased the pressure on the remaining trackers. The group informed TorrentFreak that they are aware of the growth of these sites and urged them to give up their illegal activities. If not, they would get the same treatment as DanishBits and NordicBits.

This warning wasn’t in vain. Over the past week, the staff of Asgaard considered their options and ultimately decided to throw in the towel.

“We are in a situation where our cozy project has suddenly developed into a LARGE Nordic company. With that in mind, it also made us realize that several of the driving forces behind the site have to take a serious look at their involvement with the project,” staff wrote this week.

The warning from Rights Alliance played an important role in the site’s decision. That, combined with a potential for criminal prosecution of the people involved, proved to be too much pressure.

“The top of the volcano erupts, as the Rights Alliance very descriptively says that they already have an eye on ASGAARD ​​and can see the traffic that has been coming in. In addition, there is the scare campaign about the treatment that awaits us if we choose to continue the project.”

Instead of looking over their shoulders for the years to come, sacrificing sleep and potentially their futures, shutting down is seen as the best option.

“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 concludes.

At the time of writing the site is still online but it will effectively close on December 31. While others may be interested in taking over the site, the Asgaard team prefers a hard stop and will let the domain name go as well.

The tracker operators, who relied on user donations, thank all members for their support and understanding and say they will refund all members who contributed to the site after December 2.

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

During October, the RIAA ignited a fierce debate and significant outrage when it filed a complaint that took down the open source software youtube-dl from Github.

The music industry group stated that the “clear purpose” of youtube-dl was to “circumvent the technological protection measures” used by YouTube to “reproduce and distribute music videos and sound recordings owned by our member companies without authorization for such use.”

Pre-Emptive Strike By YouTube-Ripper Yout

Just days later with public opinion swinging strongly in youtube-dl’s favor, YouTube-ripping platform Yout seized the opportunity to sue the RIAA . Yout had previously been targeted with similar allegations, including that Yout is an illegal tool that violates Section 1201 of the DMCA by circumventing YouTube’s “technical protection measures.”

Dismissing the RIAA’s claims as baseless, Yout’s complaint outlined various actions taken by the label group that ended up damaging its business. For example, Google took the RIAA’s copyright complaints at face value and delisted Yout from its search results. On top, the public takedown notices also devalued Yout’s business by tarnishing its reputation, the company explained.

Amended Complaint Highlights Additional Damage

In an amended complaint filed in a Connecticut court this week, Yout repeated many of the allegations contained in its original complaint. However, a new piece of information suggests that the RIAA also used its powers to attack Yout’s ability to make and receive money.

Yout says that in response to searches for its platform, Yout’s customers were informed by Google that due to copyright complaints received against Yout.com, results had been removed at the behest of the RIAA. This, the platform claims, ended up in Yout customers canceling their subscriptions.

Furthermore, Yout claims that the RIAA also used its powers to limit its ability to receive process payments.

“On information and belief, Defendants’ DMCA notices have caused PayPal to shut down Yout’s account, causing Yout further significant monetary and reputational damage,” the filing reads.

“The Defendants acted with intent and actual malice when they engaged in the foregoing conduct because they intended to harm the Plaintiffs.”

Enhanced Rejections of Anti-Circumvention Allegations

In Yout’s original complaint the platform described itself as a time-shifting service that, in the absence of any specific circumvention of technological copyright protection, cannot be in violation of the anti-circumvention measures of the DMCA.

Indeed, Yout flatly denied circumventing any of YouTube’s protection measures, including its so-called “rolling cipher”, the mechanism at the very heart of the RIAA’s complaint against youtube-dl. What is interesting in Yout’s amended complaint is that it now makes enhanced claims and denials, which show clear signs of benefiting from the EFF’s and Github’s legal stance in the youtube-dl matter.

“[T]he rolling cipher mechanism employed by YouTube does not prevent copying of videos or other digital media,” Yout’s amended complaint reads.

“Yout’s software platform works the same way as a browser when it encounters
the signature mechanism: it reads and interprets the JavaScript program sent by YouTube, derives a signature value [referred to by RIAA as a ‘rolling cipher’], and sends that value back to YouTube to initiate the video stream

“Yout’s software platform contains no password, key, or other secret knowledge that is required to access YouTube videos. It simply uses the same mechanism that YouTube presents to each and every user who views a video,” the company adds.

In a nutshell, Yout says that it cannot circumvent the rolling cipher (as defined in the DMCA) because YouTube itself provides the means to access video streams to anyone who asks for them.

“[O]ne cannot ‘circumvent’ an access control by using publicly available means,” the platform concludes.

Targeting YouTube-DL Proves Counterproductive

Whether the RIAA anticipated the backlash in response to its targeting of youtube-dl or not, it now faces a significantly more difficult struggle to suppress similar tools and services. With the EFF and Github now heavily involved, it’s no longer a simple case of sending takedown notices and watching tools disappear.

And, as Yout’s lawsuit shows, there could be additional legal repercussions too, including a potential effect on long-running cases that the RIAA is already embroiled in .

Yout’s amended complaint can be found here (pdf)

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

Millions of people around the world use torrent sites and forms of file-sharing to share copyrighted material on a regular basis. In most countries, this is against the law.

This restrictive stance toward ‘sharing’ is problematic according to a group of activists, who have launched the “ Freedom to Share ” initiative.

One Million Signatures

The campaign is a European Citizens’ Initiative . This is a form of direct democracy that allows the public to take part in the development of EU law and policies. With enough support across various EU member states and at least one million signatures, the EU Commission will have to officially consider the proposal.

This is certainly not the first time that activists have called for the legalization of file-sharing. However, this campaign has substantial backing . It has support from the Italian Wikimedia Foundation, for example, and various Pirate parties are taking part as well.

Current EU law restricts the freedom of access to science and culture, according to the organizers. It is overly restrictive as the interests of major rightsholders are often put before those of regular people.

Right to Share

“We see the legalization of file-sharing as part of the ‘right to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits’ described in Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” Freedom to Share informs TorrentFreak.

“We also think that this approach would make some invasive laws obsolete. Examples of such laws span from the infamous ‘upload filters’ described in Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive, that monitor uploads for copyright infringements, to regulations in some countries that limit open WiFi hotspots on the same ground.”

The Italian attorney Marco Ciurcina acts as a spokesperson for the initiative. He believes that current laws hinder freedom of access to science and culture. Sharing files should not be illegal anywhere, whether that’s via P2P networks such as BitTorrent, email, or other sharing tools.

“The question is: is it fair for copyright, related rights, and sui generis database rights to prevent the sharing of works and other material?” Ciurcina asks.

What About Creators?

The Freedom To Share initiative answers this question with a resounding NO. However, fearing that revenues will plunge, some major copyright holders will see things differently. The group doesn’t believe that artists will be harmed by sharing though, quite the opposite.

“We believe modern technology is an opportunity for authors, not a problem. We also believe that it’s harmful for authors to depend on and support the very unfair and unpopular status quo of copyright laws. Some authors might be appreciated and known by people much more thanks to file-sharing.”

The proposal doesn’t come with any solutions for how creators should be compensated. However, file-sharers can and will still consume legally. Research has shown, for example, that ‘pirates’ spend more on legal entertainment than those who don’t share.

In addition, Freedom to Share suggests that there could be other options to bring in additional revenue. For example, through taxes, or through collecting societies that are dedicated to file-sharing.

The first priority, however, is to bring the legalization proposal into the EU spotlight. Freedom to Share hopes that it will be able to gather enough signatures in the coming weeks. And to reach that goal, it encourages all file-sharers to sign and share their initiative.

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