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.

While pirate streaming operations around the United States and Europe attract the most headlines, unlicensed IPTV and similar platforms are now mainstream in most parts of the world.

Authorities in the West are tackling this problem using quiet ‘behind-the-scenes’ agreements through to civil litigation and criminal enforcement. The situation in Asia is similar and over the past couple of weeks a number of cases have been made public.

Police in Taiwan Arrest Nine

As reported by Japan-based anti-piracy group CODA , authorities in Taiwan carried out an operation through the latter part of January and early February targeting what is described as a “criminal organization” involved in the supply of illegal streams. With assistance from the prosecutor’s office, police, and detective agencies, officers arrested nine people.

Taiwan established a dedicated team in early 2020 to tackle the illegal streaming of TV shows to pirate devices and since then 18 locations have been searched, resulting in the seizure of hundreds of set-top devices and computer servers. After analysis, it was found that some of the devices provided illegal access to broadcasts from Taiwan and Japan.

“It is believed that the criminal organization deciphered the broadcast signals of each major TV station through network servers installed in domestic telecommunications equipment rooms and sent them to infringing set-top devices via the Internet,” CODA reports.

Thai Police Raid Five Premises Linked to Illegal Streaming

Over the past several years Thailand’s Department of Special Investigation (DSI) has carried out numerous actions against individuals involved in the supply of pirate IPTV and similar streaming services.

Two Brits and a local were arrested in 2017 under suspicion of violating the rights of the Premier League and in 2019, DSI shut down the country’s most popular pirate site, Movie2free.com, following a request from the Motion Picture Association.

Last weekend, the DSI unit was in action again, raiding five premises linked to the illegal movie streaming. According to Pol Lt Col Korawat, among the items seized were 100 receivers, decoders, satellite dishes, computers, notebooks, hard disks and mobile phones. It’s believed that the equipment was used to supply pirated movies and TV content to the website fwiptv.cc. That site is currently down.

According to the Bangkok Post , the main players behind the streaming operation were not discovered during the raids and the authorities were only able to arrest technicians hired to run the operation.

Fwiptv.cc was reportedly founded in 2012 and was Thailand’s largest broadcaster of pirated movies and sport, including content owned by the Premier League.

Prosecution in Malaysia

Over in Malaysia, a company director behind the operation to supply ‘Long TV’ pirate TV devices to the public pleaded guilty on Monday. According to local reports, the individual was charged with selling the devices and breaching intellectual property rights last September.

“The company, located at I-City, Persiaran Multimedia, Section 7, Shah Alam, Selangor has violated Section 41(1)(ha) of the Copyright Act 1987 for selling any technology or device for the purpose of bypassing any effective technological measures stated under subsection 36A(3) of the same Act,” a statement from the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs reads.

According to the Ministry, the yet-to-be-named individual faces a fine of up to RM40,000 (around US$9,900) and a prison sentence of up to 10 years.

Educational Initiatives in Japan

Last August, Japan’s Agency for Cultural Affairs, a body of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, hired Hello Kitty to become its Copyright Ambassador. Since then, local anti-piracy group CODA has been releasing educational content featuring the famous character in an effort to keep people away from sources of pirated content.

Masaharu Ina, CODA’s Director of Overseas Copyright Protection, recently sent TorrentFreak a new video to promote compliance with Japan’s brand new anti-piracy law along with a Hello Kitty quiz designed to test people’s knowledge of copyright.

The video is embedded below and the quiz can be found here .

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

More than three years ago, Epic Games decided to take several Fortnite cheaters to court, accusing them of copyright infringement.

Pretty much all of these lawsuits have been settled but there is one that proved to be quite a challenge.

One of the alleged cheaters, who was also accused of advertising and distributing the cheat via his YouTube channel, turned out to be a minor. The game publisher wasn’t aware of this when it filed the lawsuit, but the kid’s mother let the company know in clear terms.

Mother Intervenes

“This company is in the process of attempting to sue a 14-year-old child,” the mother informed the court back in 2017.

The letter was widely publicized in the press but Epic Games didn’t back off. Due to his young age, the Carolina District Court ordered that the kid, who operated the “Sky Orbit” YouTube channel, should only be referred to by his initials C.R. The case itself continued, albeit slowly.

Since C.R. didn’t retain an attorney or otherwise respond in court, Epic filed a motion for default judgment. The court didn’t accept this right away, however, instead deciding that the mother’s letter should be treated as a motion to dismiss the case.

Among other defenses, the mother highlighted that the EULA, which the game publisher relies heavily upon in the complaint, isn’t legally binding. The EULA states that minors require permission from a parent or legal guardian, which was not the case here.

Default judgments Denied

The court reviewed these arguments but concluded that they were not sufficient to dismiss the case. After that ruling things went quiet. Neither C.R. nor his mom responded, which prompted Epic Games to file another motion for default judgment, which was also denied.

According to the court, it is not allowed to order default judgments against minors who haven’t been represented. That brought the case back to square one, and Epic Games saw no other option than to ask the court to appoint a guardian to represent C.R. This request was granted in the summer of 2019.

Settlement Agreement

This strategy eventually paid off and it brought all parties together again. After more than three years, Epic Games and C.R have agreed to settle the case.

The legal paperwork doesn’t reveal any details regarding the outcome. Epic Games specifically asked to keep the agreement out of the public eye, to protect C.R. who hasn’t turned 18 yet.

“In this case, the minor Defendant’s privacy interests outweigh the public interest to access,” Epic Games informed the court (pdf) .

“There is no proper purpose or public service that could be achieved by public disclosure of the private details of the settlement agreement – rather, the minor could be exposed to public scrutiny and unfairly disadvantaged as a result.”

Money Isn’t a Motive

Since C.R. previously continued promoting cheats on YouTube while the lawsuit was active, we assume that the settlement will strictly forbid this type of activity going forward.

A large settlement sum seems unlikely, as previous cases have shown that the games developer isn’t trying to financially ruin its targets. The company is mainly interested in preventing them from cheating in the future.

At the time of writing, the court has yet to officially approve the settlement publicly. The docket lists an order dated today, but that’s sealed and not available to outsiders.

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

After years of battling peer-to-peer sharing carried out on networks including BitTorrent, the major record labels now view stream-ripping as the major piracy threat.

Broadly speaking, stream-ripping is carried out in two ways – either by using tools such as youtube-dl (which allow users to rip content from YouTube directly to their machines) or via dedicated websites that simplify the process. Some of these sites have become extremely popular, attracting the attention of the labels on the way.

Application For Injunction – Stream-Ripping

For well over a decade, entertainment industry companies have appeared in the High Court of England and Wales demanding that the UK’s leading ISPs block access to torrent and streaming sites. If the major record labels have their way, the same will soon apply to stream-ripping sites too.

This week a group of record labels under the umbrella of the British Recorded Music Industry Ltd (BPI) and Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL) appeared at the High Court demanding that six major Internet service providers (including BT, Virgin, Sky, TalkTalk, EE and Plusnet) should block access to eight stream-ripping sites.

“On 3 February 2021, the High Court in London held an online hearing for a new set of website blocking cases, brought by the BPI to help reduce music piracy in the UK,” BPI General Counsel, Kiaron Whitehead informs TorrentFreak.

“The judge, Mr Justice Miles, has reserved his judgment and so we await receiving his ruling, and his written reasons for it, in due course.”

As the Judge is yet to render his decision, the BPI doesn’t want to go into too much detail at this legally sensitive stage, including by naming the plaintiffs and the sites being targeted. Nevertheless, we have been able to independently confirm some of the action’s key details.

According to the labels – which include Warner, Sony, and Capitol Records – 2conv.com, flvto.biz, 2Convert.net, H2Converter.com, H2Download.org, Flv2mp3.by, Flvtool.com and Ytbapi.com are sites that help users to rip music from sites like YouTube, in breach of the labels’ copyrights.

2conv and flvto.biz are already being sued by major labels in the United States and H2Converter has appeared on the EU’s ‘Counterfeit and Piracy Watch List’.

Notably, several of the targeted ripping sites are already blocked by ISPs in Australia following successful legal action by Sony, Universal, and Warner, with assistance from Music Rights Australia and the Australasian Performing Right Association.

Stream-Rippers ‘Authorize’ Users’ Piracy

TorrentFreak understands that this week’s application was made under Section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 . This allows the High Court to grant an injunction against a service provider, where that service provider has actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright.

The labels told the Court that since content uploaded to YouTube is generally licensed to be streamed via the site, people who download the labels’ tracks to their machines are making unlicensed (pirated) copies.

By extension, the labels argued that since the stream-ripping platforms authorize and facilitate the creation of those pirate copies contrary to the Copyright Act, they too can be held liable for users’ infringement.

While these arguments will be assessed on their merits in respect of the labels’ copyrights, the sites in question appear to be general tools that can be used to download content to which none of the labels hold the copyrights. Whether this aspect will be investigated by the Judge remains to be seen. It certainly didn’t prevent the sites from being blocked in Australia.

What we do know is that opposition won’t arrive in the form of objections by the ISPs. The service providers say they won’t oppose the application but do want to provide input should Justice Miles grant the application, presumably so they can protect their interests at the blocking stage.

Second Application For Injunction – Cyberlocker

In a second application for injunction reported by Law360 , the labels want the same ISPs to block access to cyberlocker site Nitroflare.com.

Record company lawyer Edmund Cullen of Maitland Chambers told the Court that Nitroflare could potentially claim safe harbor under the UK’s electronic commerce regulations but in this case, protection from liability isn’t available.

“This is not a provision designed or available to a service like Nitroflare which is essentially structured for infringement and it can’t be a protection for pirates,” Cullen said, alleging that Nitroflare encourages its users to store and share copyrighted content.

At this stage it is not known when Justice Miles will render his decision.

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

Internet provider Charter Communications is one of several companies being sued for turning a blind eye to pirating subscribers .

The cases, filed by dozens of major record labels and music companies, allege that Internet providers fail to terminate accounts of repeat infringers.

Stakes Are High

These lawsuits are serious business. In 2019, for example, a jury found Cox liable for the infringements of its customers, awarding a billion dollars in damages to several record labels. This decision was confirmed recently but will be appealed.

With the stakes this high, the lawsuit against Charter is being fought tooth and nail by both sides. The ISP has already fought back, arguing that the record label’s takedown notices were abusive and misleading. That effort failed and meanwhile, tensions remain high.

With the trial getting closer the focus has shifted on the core accusations. Over the past two weeks, that resulted in an interesting standoff over P2P piracy including BitTorrent, and whether that is still a problem for the music industry.

P2P is No Longer a Problem

The origin of this issue dates back to a hearing last year over a discovery request from Charter. The ISP requested revenue details from the music companies, with a specific interest in streaming income in recent years.

According to Charter’s attorney Erin Ranahan, this information would be relevant to determine the scale of potential damages, if the ISP is found liable. When P2P piracy is no longer a big issue, the amount could be lower from a deterrence perspective.

While making this argument, the attorney stated that P2P piracy is indeed no longer an issue. Not just that, with help from ISPs the music companies now make lots of money from streaming.

“And just to give you some background, the snippet of time in which this case involves, because of the total length in the claim period, is a time when this P2P issue was at its most pronounced. Today it’s no longer a problem,” Ranahan said.

“Today plaintiffs’ clients are making a ton of money off of the Internet streaming capabilities […]. Charter’s Internet is actually giving them a vehicle by which they make a huge amount of money.”

Music Companies Demand P2P Evidence

This argument wasn’t well-received by the music companies. While other piracy threats may be more prevalent than P2P piracy, they still see it as a major problem.

To back this up with data, the companies sent a series of new requests to Charter asking for information. They want to show that P2P piracy is still a problem and that Charter financially benefits from this infringing activity.

Among other things, Charter was asked to share extensive logs of infringement notices, internal discussions about copyright infringement, as well as monthly revenue statements linked to alleged pirates.

The music companies argue that they need this information to rebut Charter’s claim that P2P piracy is no longer a problem. The ISP could use this claim as a defense during the trial, they fear.

Request Denied, For Now

Charter refused to provide the information and pointed out that the court already denied a similar request in the past. During a hearing two weeks ago, the Special Master agreed with the ISP and denied discovery.

The record labels are not letting the issue go that easily though. This week they were back in court, objecting to the denial. They note that the current request is not related to earlier queries, but is specifically tailored to address the P2P problem comment, which is ‘new’.

“Plaintiffs should be permitted this limited discovery to rebut Charter’s argument that peer-to-peer piracy is no longer a phenomenon to which Charter contributes and which contribution must be deterred,” they argue, hoping to reverse the earlier denial.

The request was submitted a few days ago and the Colorado federal court has yet to decide whether it will reconsider its position or not.

—

A copy of the music companies’ objection to the Special Master’s order denying discovery is available here (pdf)

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

Back in 2014, the MPAA made its usual ‘notorious markets’ submission to the USTR and among regular targets such as The Pirate Bay and Popcorn Time, the Hollywood group highlighted the activities of China-based YYeTs.com.

At the time, the site – which is also known as Renren Yingshi – was described as the most popular dedicated download site for copyrighted content in China, providing links in various formats, including for the popular Xunlei and BitTorrent clients. It rose to fame after being founded in 2004 by a group of Chinese students living in Canada.

Notably, the site was also called out for offering crowd-sourced Chinese subtitles for Western content, something that helped boost infringement of US-made movies and TV shows. On the other hand, it allowed local users to easily consume otherwise unavailable content, to the disappointment of both Hollywood and the Chinese government, albeit for different reasons.

Chinese Government Takes Action

On November 22, 2014, visitors to YYeTs and another subtitle-focused site, Shooters.cn, found the platforms in considerable trouble. With Shooters announcing its immediate closure, YYeTs said that it would be offline for a while, ostensibly to “clean up” its site. State-run news services indicated that the sites had been targeted for infringing the rights of foreign companies.

YYeTs somehow managed to survive, as it had done previously following similar enforcement action in 2010. This week, however, it became clear that the site is under pressure once again after being targeted by local police.

According to local media reports, police in Shanghai arrested 14 people under suspicion of being involved in the operations of YYeTs/Renren Yingshi, which was recently reported to have eight million registered users.

“Investigations showed that the suspects set up several companies engaging in the distribution, operation and maintenance of the ‘Renren Yingshi’ mobile app and a related web portal by setting up or leasing servers in China or overseas since 2018,” the People’s Daily reported Wednesday.

It’s believed that those arrested in this week’s operation systematically downloaded movies and TV shows from pirate websites located outside China, added subtitles, and distributed the captioned videos from their own servers in breach of copyright.

Specific dates for the arrests haven’t been circulated in the media. But, in mid-January, there were several reports that China-based pirate sites had closed their doors to new members. It’s likely those precautionary measures were linked to the current arrests.

A report from SCMP notes that China has hundreds of subtitling sites similar to Renren Yingshi that originally used volunteer translators. Over time, however, site operators have chosen to hire translators to generate Chinese subtitles for foreign movies and TV shows, paying around $60 per video.

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

The International Olympic Committee ( IOC ) is known to maintain a tight grip on its intellectual property rights.

Using an image of the Olympic rings or even just the word ‘Olympic’ can already result in legal trouble, especially when it’s used in a commercial context.

Most valuable, however, are the broadcasting rights. With literally billions of dollars at stake, the IOC and its licensing partners are doing everything in their power to prevent people from streaming their events without permission.

Olympic Piracy Woes

This stance was made clear once again in a recent submission to the US Trade Representative (USTR). While it’s still uncertain whether the delayed Tokyo summer Olympics will actually take place, the IOC has other worries as well. The organization fears that piracy could spoil the “magic” of the world’s largest sports event.

“We are extremely concerned of the impact that online piracy could create during the next 12 months, which will include extensive broadcast coverage of not only the Olympic and Paralympic Games Tokyo 2020, but also the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing,” IOC writes.

While piracy is a global phenomenon, the organization appears to be most worried about Saudi Arabia, where beIN Media Group acquired the broadcast rights. Saudi Arabia’s piracy challenges are well-known and even prominent Saudis have been accused of promoting illicit streaming services in the past.

Lacking Enforcement in Saudi Arabia

The most egregious offender was the streaming service beoutQ, which disappeared in 2019. By then, however, many Saudis had become used to cheap streaming options and many unlicensed services remain available today. This is a problem and the IOC calls for stronger enforcement in the region.

“Robust enforcement efforts by Saudi Arabia against piracy are therefore essential to protect the exclusive rights of beIN in the region, support athletes and safeguard the goals of the Olympic movement,” IOC writes.

The Olympic Committee is worried that if piracy remains rampant the value of their broadcasting rights will decrease. It notes that this threatens the long-term funding of the Olympic movement, part of which indirectly flows back to the sporters.

From Torrents to Streaming

This isn’t the first time the IOC has voiced its concerns over piracy. Our first reports date back more than a decade ago, when the Committee targeted The Pirate Bay . Over the years, the stakes clearly changed as there are now hundreds if not thousands of high-quality pirate streaming services online.

IOC hopes that the US Trade Representative can help to address this problem. It requests Priority Watch List status for Saudi Arabia in the upcoming Special 301 Report and urges the US to ensure that the Middle Eastern country takes the problem seriously.

“The IOC respectfully requests that the USTR maintains Saudi Arabia’s position on the Priority Watch List, engages with the Kingdom to protect and enforce the intellectual property rights of rightsholders and considers taking further appropriate steps in order to address the ongoing harm caused to rightsholders and broadcasters from copyright infringements and piracy activities,” it writes.

Olympic Committee is Not Alone

The IOC is not the only rightsholder to identify Saudi Arabia as a problem area. The country’s piracy issues are also brought up by several other industry groups, sports leagues, and other companies. That includes beIN, which owns the local sports broadcasting rights.

BeIN notes that beoutQ has indeed shut down, but not with help from the Saudi Government, which failed to go after the operators. Also, following beoutQ’s demise, many other pirate services have stepped up to fill the gap.

“The effects of the beoutQ piracy remain as IPTV applications downloaded onto beoutQ boxes continue to offer thousands of pirated movies, TV shows, and TV channels from the United States, Europe, and across the globe.

“Despite repeated complaints by beIN and other rights holders, Saudi Arabia has never taken criminal or other action against beoutQ, or its Saudi facilitators and supporters,” beIN adds in its letter to the USTR.

These and other submissions will be used as input for the forthcoming Special 301 Report, which is used by the U.S. as a diplomatic tool to encourage other countries to improve copyright enforcement and legislation.

—

A copy of IOC’s letter to the US Trade Representative is available here (pdf)

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

Since 2003, publisher Activision has teamed up with various developers to release Call of Duty games on various platforms. Its longest standing partner is California-based Infinity Ward, whose team was responsible for the 2019 release Call of Duty: Modern Warfare.

Available for Windows, PS4 and Xbox One, Modern Warfare received plenty of praise but not everyone is happy with the end result.

According to a lawsuit filed in a Texas court yesterday, Activision, Infinity Ward (IW), and Major League Gaming Corp (MLG) committed copyright infringement after copying and then passing off a character design as their own.

“Deliberate, Intentional and Comprehensive Copying”

Plaintiff Clayton Haugen describes himself as a writer, photographer and videographer from North Carolina. He is also the copyright owner of two literary works and 22 photographs of a character he named ‘Cade Janus’, the central figure in his story ‘November Renaissance’, which he hoped could be made into a film.

In 2017, Haugen says he hired ‘talent’ (actress, cosplayer, twitch streamer Alex Zedra) to portray ‘Cade Janus’ and took a series of photographs, which together with his story were presented to film studios. In a further promotional effort, the photographs were also published on Instagram and in a series of calendars. It appears that the defendants also became of Haugen’s work.

As part of their hunt for a “strong, skilled female fighter”, the defendant videogame companies (through contractors) allegedly hired the same ‘talent’ (Zedra) and asked her to obtain the same clothing and gear used in the original ‘Cade Janus’ photoshoot from Haugen himself.

The companies also hired the same makeup artist, who was instructed to copy the makeup and hair as depicted in the original photographs, “even using the same hair extension piece.” Haugen further alleges that his original photographs were posted to “the wall of the studio” and used as a framing guide before the model was 3D-scanned.

“To conceal their planned infringement of Haugen’s Cade Janus Photographs and his Cade Janus character, Defendants required the talent and the makeup professional to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements,” the complaint notes.

“The resulting photographs were intended to be, and were, copies of Haugen’s Cade Janus Photographs,” the lawsuit reads.

Infringing Photographs Used to Market Modern Warfare

According to Haugen, the resulting photographs and three-dimensional images were not only used to develop the in-game character ‘Mara’ but also deployed as key assets in Modern Warfare’s marketing campaign.

“With this infringing female character as the centerpiece of an advertising campaign for the first time in the Call of Duty series, [defendants] shattered all previous sales and games-played records. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare has generated more than a billion dollars in revenues,” the lawsuit reads.

Copyright Infringement Claims

As the copyright owner of the works in question, Haugen explains that he has the exclusive right to make copies and derivatives, and the exclusive right of distribution. The lawsuit reveals that while Haugen had copyrights registered for his story back in 2012 and 2013, the Copyright Office only registered his photographs on December 21, 2020, presumably so he could file this complaint.

Haugen says that the character ‘Mara’ is “substantially similar” to his creation ‘Cade Janus’ and provides samples to show that his original photographs were copied during a Modern Warfare photoshoot in 2019.

As a result, Haugen claims that Activision, Infinity Ward and Major League Gaming have infringed and continue to infringe his rights. In the alternative, Activision Blizzard has or has had a financial interest in the infringement of Haugen’s copyrights so can be held vicariously liable for the infringements of the trio.

In a further alternative, the defendants knew that the other defendants and their contractors were infringing and induced and/or encouraged that behavior, making them liable for contributory infringement of Haugen’s rights.

“Haugen is entitled to recover all monetary remedies from Defendants’ infringement, including all of their profits attributable to their infringements, to the full extent permitted by 17 U.S.C. § 504 ,” the complaint concludes, demanding a trial by jury.

The complaint can be found here (pdf)

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

In the closing months of 2020, enforcement measures against private torrent sites in Denmark became evident when the alleged 69-year-old operator of NordicBits was arrested by Spanish police.

Then, following a complaint from local anti-piracy group Rights Alliance, the State Prosecutor for Serious Economic Crime (SØIK) had a 33-year-old Danish man arrested in Morocco on suspicion of running DanishBits .

With both sites shut down, two other sites – Asgaard and ShareUniversity – opened their doors to new members but were quickly warned they too faced similar treatment.

Asgaard quickly shut itself down as did ShareUniversity, but fresh arrests earlier this month showed that the authorities were ready to pursue their operators.

Attention Switches To Persistent BitTorrent Pirates

When torrent sites shut down, there is a tendency among users to find new homes, as illustrated by the exodus from NordicBits and DanishBits to would-be replacements. While this can happen seamlessly, the authorities in Denmark have already signaled the possibility of tracking down site users, using data obtained during earlier raids.

“The most important thing is clearly to stop the illegal services, but it can certainly not be ruled out that seized data can lead to the identification of the users of the two illegal networks,” Deputy Police Inspector Michael Lichtenstein said in December.

It’s not uncommon for pirates to dismiss these kinds of statements as scare tactics or lacking in substance but there are now signs that SØIK and Rights Alliance intend to make good on their warning. In a statement published Friday, Rights Alliance says that it intends to “sharpen its focus” on these entrenched users “who stubbornly stick to their illegal activities.”

Referencing the closure of Asgaard and the associated arrests, Rights Alliance notes that SØIK is maintaining a keen interest in persistent pirates, something that it believes is “enormously important” in its battle to prevent online copyright infringement.

According to the anti-piracy group, its earlier actions against the sites listed above reduced the number of private tracker users by more than 75% but that leaves around 25% who, despite the enforcement actions, still aren’t getting the message. As a result, further measures will be taken.

“With the IP Task Force behind it, technical insight and access to the illegal services where the Danish incarnated users have moved from, it is now possible to take an active part in sanctioning them,” Rights Alliance warns.

Interestingly, the anti-piracy group makes a specific reference to users deploying anonymization techniques, noting that they have the tools to unmask them, whether they’re using a VPN or not. TorrentFreak asked for more information on this claim but Rights Alliance declined to elaborate at the moment, instead offering to supply more information in the coming weeks.

Warning To Operators and Users Of New Pirate Sites

With Asgaard and ShareUniversity no longer open for DanishBits and NordicBits refugees to get their file-sharing fix, there are reports that other sites are already stepping in to bridge the gap. However, Rights Alliance warns that these services won’t be the safe haven most users prefer.

“In the coming period, the Rights Alliance’s activities will be focused on the perpetrators and users of the newly established Danish services, including NorTor, which is trying to establish itself after the closures in December,” the group says.

NorTor is a reference to NordicTorrent (NorTor.org), a torrent site that’s attempting to get off the ground at the moment. The site’s operators bought the domain at the end of December and appear to be using hosting registered in Seychelles.

Potential visitors should also be aware that while easily blocked, the platform already has not one but two cryptocurrency miners running on its main page.

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