In 2002, when Megaupload was a mere twinkle in the eye of Kim Dotcom, Swiss-based file-hosting site was already on its way to becoming an Internet giant.

The platform provided a simple way to store and share files with others and as a result, soon became popular with people looking to distribute copyright-infringing content. This attracted the negative attention of numerous copyright holders.

As an Internet services platform, RapidShare always insisted that it was not in control over the material being uploaded by its users, an assertion that sometimes had courts in agreement . Nevertheless, RapidShare continued to draw the ire of copyright holder groups and eventually found itself labeled by the USTR as a “notorious market”.

As pressure built, RapidShare made efforts to restrict the ability of users to share infringing content but this change of model took its toll on the site. Visitor numbers quickly decreased as customers chose to frequent more liberal platforms. In March 2015, the file-hoster decided to close its doors leaving dozens of former employees without jobs.

Criminal Lawsuit Filed in Switzerland

More than three years after the site shut itself down, it became clear that RapidShare’s operators were still facing an uncertain future. The service’s founder, Christian Schmid, his wife Alexandra, and one of their former lawyers, were put on trial in a criminal court. The public prosecutor of the court in Zug accused the trio of assisting in mass copyright infringement, demanding financial penalties on behalf of copyright holders.

Given the huge profits made by RapidShare (in 2009 alone, RapidShare’s gross dividend was almost $53m at today’s rates), the prosecutor argued that the enterprise benefited at the expense of content companies. The site’s operators were in a position to stop infringement but chose not to do so, placing revenue above everything else. As a result, the site’s founder alone should pay more than 700,000 Swiss francs, it was argued.

Zug Court: RapidShare Defendants Found Not Guilty

The Swiss court certainly took its time in issuing its judgment but after a two-and-a-half-year wait, the verdict is now in. The full judgment is not yet available to the public but a summary from Tagblatt reveals that Christian and Alexandra Schmid (now 40 and 42) and their former lawyer have all been found not guilty.

Zurich lawyer Andreas Meili, who defended Alexandra Schimd in the case, described the result as a “great satisfaction” but expressed concern at the expenses incurred by his client when defending the case.

“If you are acquitted, you are entitled to compensation, not the other way around,” he told Tablatt.

Whether there will be an opportunity to address the issue of costs is currently unclear but in any event, the matter may not be over just yet. The public prosecutor and copyright holders may not accept the judgment of the Zug court and could take the case to appeal.

In any event, the trial doesn’t seem to be having a huge effect on the living standards of the Schmids. In 2019 the couple paid the Thurgau bankruptcy office around 36 million Swiss francs ($40.5 million) to acquire Eugensberg Castle . The 18th-century castle was previously owned by entrepreneur and convicted fraudster Rolf Erb and sports eleven bedrooms and five bathrooms.

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

More than thirteen years after the first pirate site was blocked following a court order in Denmark, movie, music and sports companies in dozens of countries have sought similar action.

More recently, publishing giants including Elsevier have also sought to protect their rights by targeting Sci-Hub (‘The Pirate Bay of Science’) and Libgen (Library Genesis), platforms that help to distribute scientific and academic papers to the masses, but without charging readers a penny.

New Complaint Filed at High Court in Delhi

In a new complaint dated December 21, 2020, Elsevier, Wiley, and American Chemical Society, aim to compel Indian ISPs to block both Sci-Hub and Libgen.

Naming Sci-Hub founder Alexandra Elbakyan personally and the sites themselves, the complaint alleges that all “substantially indulge in online piracy by making available for viewing and download, providing access to, and communicating to the public, Plaintiffs’ literary works” via the Internet.

The companies acknowledge that Elbakyan has never hidden her connection to Sci-Hub but note that the sites themselves, accessible via multiple domains, have their WHOIS details hidden behind privacy services in many cases.

“Therefore, it is virtually impossible to bring the owners of the websites before this Honorable Court in order to ensure that the Orders of this Court are complied with,” the complaint reads.

To solve this accountability hurdle, the publishers have included Internet service providers as defendants in the complaint. Also named are the Department of Communications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, to ensure they play their part in having the pirate platforms blocked in India.

Complaint is Voluminous But Relies on Tested Theories

At 2,169 pages long, the publishers’ complaint is huge by any standards. However, it appears to tread little new ground and instead bases itself on previously tried and tested procedures.

In particular, it leans heavily on complaints previously filed by Twentieth Century Fox and local Disney-owned media giant UTV Software Communications, which resulted in some of the largest torrent and streaming sites on the Internet being permanently blocked in India.

In the current complaint against Sci-Hub and Libgen, which is similar to the UTV case, the aim is to categorize the platforms as “rogue sites” worthy of the special actions available under a so-called “dynamic injunction”. In practical terms, this means that the plaintiffs’ won’t have to keep returning to court for additional injunctions when Sci-Hub and Libgen predictably launch new domains and mirror sites to avoid blocking.

According to Sci-Hub, the case was to be heard Thursday in the High Court of Delhi. In the same tweet , the platform also shared a full copy of the complaint, available here .

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

Grammy award-winning musician Maria Schneider and Virgin Islands-based Pirate Monitor Ltd teamed up in the summer to file a class-action lawsuit against YouTube.

In an effort to gain access to YouTube’s Content ID system, the complaint stated that YouTube has an allegedly lax attitude to takedown notices and repeat infringers, and discriminates against smaller creators.

Schneider told the court that a number of her songs had been posted to YouTube without her permission. Pirate Monitor Ltd argued similarly, stating that pirated copies of its works had been uploaded to the site. Both further said they had been denied access to Content ID.

In its response, YouTube focused on Pirate Monitor, alleging that the company or its agents uploaded the ‘pirate’ movies and then claimed mass infringement, something which disqualified them from accessing Content ID.

“YouTube Failed to Provide Evidence”

In a motion to dismiss filed in November, Pirate Monitor said YouTube had provided no “hard evidence” to back up these damaging claims, demanding that the court disregard the allegations and reject calls for the right to an injunction to prevent Pirate Monitor from submitting wrongful DMCA notices in the future.

At the time we noted that it was unlikely that YouTube had simply pulled its claims out of thin air and in an opposition to dismiss Pirate Monitor’s counterclaims, YouTube now provides a taster of some of the supporting evidence it has on file.

Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims

“Pirate Monitor devised an elaborate scheme to prove itself sufficiently trustworthy to use YouTube’s advanced copyright management tools,” YouTube begins.

“Through agents using pseudonyms to hide their identities, Pirate Monitor uploaded some two thousand videos to YouTube, each time representing that the content did not infringe anyone’s copyright. Shortly thereafter, Pirate Monitor invoked the notice-and-takedown provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to demand that YouTube remove the same videos its agents had just uploaded.”

YouTube notes that Pirate Monitor has still not disputed these claims but has nevertheless moved to dismiss, arguing that YouTube should provide detailed evidence to support its allegations. According to YouTube, it does not have to do that at this early stage but nevertheless highlights some key evidence to show foul play.

Suspicious Uploads

In all, YouTube processed nearly 2,000 DMCA notices it received by Pirate Monitor in the fall of 2019. All of the targeted videos had a uniform length, around 30 seconds each, generated from “obscure Hungarian movies”. They had been uploaded in bulk from users with IP addresses allocated to Pakistan.

“That alone was suspicious, there is no obvious reason why short clips from relatively unknown Hungarian-language movies should be uploaded to YouTube from accounts and devices in Pakistan,” YouTube writes.

Furthermore, YouTube notes that the videos were uploaded by users with similar names, such as RansomNova11 and RansomNova12, who gave the clips nondescript titles. Perhaps even more telling, the takedown notices were sent soon after the videos were uploaded, sometimes before the videos had been seen by anyone.

While the nature of the uploads is indeed suspicious, YouTube says that it also found what it describes as a “smoking gun”, i.e evidence that the uploads and DMCA notices were being sent by the same entity.

The Smoking Gun

“After considerable digging, YouTube found a smoking gun. In November 2019, amidst a raft of takedown notices from Pirate Monitor, one of the ‘RansomNova’ users that had been uploading clips via IP addresses in Pakistan logged into their YouTube account from a computer connected to the Internet via an IP address in Hungary,” YouTube explains.

“Pirate Monitor had been sending YouTube its takedown notices from a computer assigned that very same unique numeric address in Hungary. Simply put, whoever RansomNova is, he or she was sharing Pirate Monitor’s computer and/or Internet connection, and doing so at the same time Pirate Monitor was using the same computer and/or connection to send YouTube takedown notices.”

To counter Pirate Monitor’s claims that not enough evidence has been provided, YouTube says that a party is not required to prove its entire case in its complaint and the relevant rules do not allow Pirate Monitor to escape any accounting for fraudulent and illegal conduct by “concealing the identity of its agents and obscuring its connection to them.”

Specifically, however, YouTube says it has already answered the “who, what, where and when?” questions Pirate Monitor claims YouTube has not answered. The “who” is Pirate Monitor, the “what” is Pirate Monitor’s allegedly fraudulent representations, the “where” is YouTube’s website, and the “when” is from August 2019 to November 2019.

“For these reasons, Pirate Monitor’s motion to dismiss should be denied,” YouTube’s legal team writes.

The opposition to Pirate Monitor’s motion to dismiss 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.

With more than 35 million students, 57,000 instructors, and 400 million courses available, Udemy is a huge player in the online learning space.

Accessing the company’s content obviously comes at a price too so when online learning group ShareLearn spotted an opportunity for students to access thousands of Udemy courses legally and for free, they decided to share the information with the world.

Tutorial Uploaded to YouTube To Help Students

ShareLearn’s four-minute video, which TorrentFreak was able to review on another platform, begins with a splash screen indicating that by using the techniques shown in the videos, thousands of courses can be accessed by students with the right credentials.

While it does display the Udemy logo, a disclaimer at the start of the video states that the tutorial is “not affiliated with Udemy”.

The purpose of the video was to spread the word that Udemy has a partnership with Gale to provide “more than 6,000 high-quality, on-demand video courses taught by world-class instructors across 75 categories for upskilling in the areas of business, technology, and design.”

As part of this arrangement, free courses are available under some library systems.

The System to Access Courses is Hosted By Gale

The video reveals that if students from certain cities in the United States visit gale.udemy.com , they are presented with a portal that operates in partnership with their libraries, universities, colleges and schools. With the library option selected, a list of participating libraries appears.

In the tutorial video, San Francisco library is used as an example. For authentication purposes, users are required to enter their library account credentials and from there they are passed to Udemy, which requires a Google or Microsoft account to proceed.

The people at ShareLearn showed a screenshot of this page to make their tutorial easier to understand, as we have done with the screenshot of the video below.

Udemy Files Copyright Complaint With YouTube

Given the obviously useful nature of the video, it’s perhaps reasonable to conclude that at least some students would’ve learned something from it. However, not too long after it was uploaded to YouTube, it was targeted by a Udemy copyright complaint which resulted in it being taken down.

“[Udemy] has claimed copyright infringement for use of their logo,” ShareLearn informs TorrentFreak.

“We believe it is covered under fair use and they want to hold us from promoting this option to avoid people from using this library service paid by taxpayers. I have sent them a few emails, but they have given a standard reply that we violated their copyright,” ShareLearn add.

Udemy’s Legal Department Refuses to Reconsider

From correspondence reviewed by TF, ShareLearn told Udemy that they “appreciate what Udemy is doing for society” and were excited to see the Udemy/Gale/libraries partnership, noting that the project seemed like a good use of taxpayers’ money.

“In this video, we have used udemy logo as a reference to udemy, which is covered under fair use. We used screenshots from gale.udemy.com website to help library patterns sign up for your service via public library, which is covered under fair use [sic],” the correspondence reads.

ShareLearn then presented Udemy’s legal team with a list of questions requesting additional information on why the inclusion of screenshots bearing Udemy’s logo can’t be considered fair use. The group also asked where Udemy itself advertises the availability of the free service to students.

In its response, Udemy ignored the questions and reiterated its key objection.

“When material posted on other platforms infringes Udemy’s intellectual property rights, or on the rights of our instructors, we have an obligation to protect those works,” the company said.

“We have reviewed the takedown notice in question, and confirmed the infringement therein. If you have questions about intellectual property matters such as trademark, copyright, fair use, etc. you may wish to consult an attorney. Udemy cannot provide you with any legal advice on these matters.”

ShareLearn Files YouTube Counternotice

ShareLearn has filed a counternotice with YouTube in an effort to have the video restored but at the time of writing, that is still pending and the content remains down. What will happen next is unclear.

The takedown from YouTube was filed under copyright law, clearly referencing Udemy’s “copyrighted logo”. Whether any fair use defense is applicable in this case will be for lawyers to argue over but aside from the 20-second intro page (shown in the screenshot above, which includes a disclaimer), the only use of the Udemy logo thereafter is when screenshots/screen recordings of the Udemy/Gale website/system are displayed.

Given that the idea of the video was to promote Udemy products and services developed alongside Gale and libraries for the benefit of students, the copyright complaint and subsequent removal seem somewhat overzealous, if not counterproductive too.

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

Abonnez-vous à notre chaîne YouTube pour ne manquer aucune vidéo !

L'article Décorations de Noël, survivalisme & femmes célèbres : 5 chaînes YouTube à suivre en décembre 2020 est apparu en premier sur Numerama .

Abonnez-vous à notre chaîne YouTube pour ne manquer aucune vidéo !

L'article Black Friday & Cyber Monday : dernière chance pour profiter des meilleures offres tech est apparu en premier sur Numerama .

Preventing the general public from accessing movies and TV shows without paying for them is a monumental task that, if anything, feels even more difficult than it was 15 years ago.

In addition to hundreds, perhaps thousands of torrent and streaming sites, copyright holders also have to deal with the growing threat of premium IPTV, which grants access to every type of live TV under the sun for comparatively low prices.

Somewhere in the middle of this organized chaos, movie and TV show companies are trying to tackle pirate apps. Mostly Android and iOS-based, these consumer-friendly tools present content in easy-to-navigate interfaces, pulling content from not just their own sources but in many cases third-party file-hosting and IPTV/streaming suppliers, much as other pirate sites do too.

MediaBox HD Targeted By The MPA

One of the more popular tools in this growing niche is MediaBox HD. Available for both Android and iOS, the app is in demand by those looking to access premium content on their phones or, as is increasingly the case, a tablet or Android-based set-top box.

MediaBox HD’s popularity lies in its many features. Aside from a large free library of movies and TV shows, it supports services such as Real-Debrid for more reliable streaming, has Chromecast support, can offer subtitles and even allows for offline viewing. For groups like the MPA, however, these are all reasons to take the app down.

MPA Sends Copyright Complaint to Github

While MediaBox HD has its own site , at the time of writing it’s impossible to access the Android variant of its app from there. Rather than hosting the APK in the same location, the app’s developers chose to host the software on Github instead, meaning it was vulnerable to an easy takedown.

Teaming up under the banner of the Motion Picture Association (MPA), Paramount, Sony, Universal, Warner, Disney and Netflix, sent a copyright complaint to Github, calling on the platform to remove the piracy-facilitating software.

“We are writing to notify you of, and request your assistance in addressing, the extensive copyright infringement of motion pictures and television shows that is occurring by virtue of the operation of the APK software Mediabox HD, which is hosted on and available for download from your repository Github.com,” it reads.

“Specifically, at the URL, the Repository hosts and offers for download the APK, which in turn is used to engage in massive infringement of copyrighted motion pictures and television shows.”

MPA Demands Removal of MediaBox HD Under the DMCA

Attached to the MPA’s complaint but unpublished by Github, the movie and TV show group provides screenshots that claim to show that MedaBox HD streams copyrighted content to the masses resulting in “massive infringement.”

While providing various examples of alleged infringement, the MPA says that these are just the tip of the iceberg since the software goes much further by blatantly infringing other content owned by its members and copyrights held by others.

On this basis, the MPA states that infringement is “plainly is its predominant use and purpose”, citing case law including the MGM v Grokster litigation (2005), the Arista Records v Usenet dispute from 2005, and the 2009 lawsuit between Columbia Pictures and former isoHunt operator Gary Fung.

The MPA suggests that it doesn’t really mind on which basis Github removes the app, whether that’s under the DMCA’s takedown provisions, repeat infringer rules, or Github’s acceptable use policy. Interestingly, however, it does note that it is not trying to claim that the app’s code is copyright-infringing, merely that its sole purpose is to infringe.

“Please note that, by this notice, the MPA Members are not addressing copyright ownership of the APK’s specific lines of code; rather, they are addressing the use of the APK as a whole to provide unauthorized, infringing access to streaming video content, and requesting that you remove or disable access to the APK as a whole on your Repository,” the notice adds.

Github Complied With the Request

Unlike the dispute currently engulfing youtube-dl, which has put Github at odds with the RIAA , there appears to be no such confusion here. Following the request from the MPA, Github removed the MediaBox HD app and, as a result, the software is no longer available from official sources.

While MediaBox HD will likely solve this problem in due course, the attention from the MPA comes after the streaming software was featured in two earlier legal matters.

In September 2019, following a subpoena from the makers of the movie Hellboy, third-party app-store TweakBox took the decision to remove MediaBox HD (plus Popcorn Time and CotoMovies) from its platform.

A month earlier, a Pakistani man who operated a site that offered MediaBox HD, Showbox, Popcorn Time and similar software, agreed to pay a settlement of $150,000 to companies behind the movies The Hitman’s Bodyguard, London Has Fallen and Hunter Killer.

His site, the now-defunct latestshowboxapp.com, was forced to remove MediaBox HD and similar tools, despite not being their developer. The MPA hasn’t yet shown any public signs of seeking a settlement from the developers of MediaBox HD but given past history, that might only be a matter of time.

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