Copyright law crafted decades ago to prevent infringement in an analog world has in many cases held up remarkably well in the digital age. Copying or reproduction remains relevant, as does the concept of distribution.

In the United States, the existence of a loophole in copyright law had been an open secret for some time. One way or another, file-hosting and BitTorrent sites could be linked to the unlicensed reproduction and distribution of copyright works, both of which carry felony charges.

However, a newer breed of streaming sites were seen as engaging in unlicensed public performances of copyrighted works; a misdemeanor offense under a law that failed to anticipate streaming, let alone its meteoric rise to piracy dominance.

The Protecting Lawful Streaming Act ( PLSA ) closed the loophole late December 2020 with the creation of a new felony offense ( 18 U.S.C. § 2319C ) for those who, willfully and for commercial advantage or private financial gain, offer or provide to the public a digital service that illegally streams copyrighted material.

A Brand New Start or Just Hype

After taking so long to arrive, expectations were high. The return of “ billions of dollars in stolen revenue ” may have been optimistic, but after all the talk and calls for urgency, it was suddenly up for debate whether the PLSA would be used at all.

Keen to get on with the fight against piracy, Senators Patrick Leahy and Thom Tillis urged Attorney General Merrick Garland to make prosecutions under the PLSA a priority. But then, several months later in 2021, something caught our attention.

The instantly recognizable term “illicit digital transmission” had appeared in a criminal complaint for the first time. The case ultimately went in a different direction and the charge was shelved, but it was a sign of intent, if nothing else.

First Conviction Under PLSA – How it Started

Seemingly out of nowhere, the PLSA claimed its first conviction this week. Landmark events like this are usually seen as an opportunity to celebrate the hard work of everyone involved, while sending a deterrent message to would-be pirates. But in this case, apparently not.

According to a grand jury indictment, from December 11, 2017, until September 7, 2021, Franklyn Valverde owned and operated an IPTV and VOD service marketed as ‘Fenix’.

In South Carolina and elsewhere, it’s claimed that Valverde knowingly and intentionally conspired to commit offenses against the United States, “to wit: the illicit digital transmission of services, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2319C.”

DISH Network Mentioned Early

A prosecution under the PLSA shouldn’t be much different from any other but in this matter, an oddity raises its head right at the start. The indictment claims that Valverde’s streaming service operated by way of a “copyright infringing connection to DISH Network.”

DISH is extremely well-known for filing its own lawsuits because, at least on paper, most years they generate damages awards that can reach hundreds of millions of dollars. Why DISH suddenly found itself in the middle of a criminal case isn’t revealed in the indictment; what does seem clear is that others also had ‘copyright-infringing connections’ to DISH.

“M.D., a person known to the Grand Jury, owned, and operated ‘Cord Cutters’ and ‘Olympus TV,’ IPTV and VOD services that sold access to copyrighted movies and television programs by way of an unauthorized and copyright infringing connection to
Dish Network,” the indictment reads.

Valverde’s Operation

Subscribers to the Fenix service were able to access infringing content through various web-based applications for use on various platforms, including smart TVs, computers, set-top boxes, cellphones, and tablet devices.

According to the indictment, Valverde marketed Fenix and attracted subscribers through a network of resellers, each of whom sold monthly subscriptions via so-called reseller credits. One credit equals one month of access; profit is generated by buying credits at a discount and selling them on at a higher price to customers.

“Typically, [Valverde] sold access to Fenix streams of content to resellers using a unique access code. The reseller would then provide the code to the customers at an upcharge; Customers would then have access to the copyrighted materials for a specified period, typically one month.”

While the ‘publicly performed’ aspect clearly relates to the PLSA, all other aspects from reproduction to secondary infringement could’ve been handled under existing law. Nevertheless, the indictment covers other matters too.

Overt Acts

In furtherance of the conspiracy, it’s alleged that Valverde committed the following acts:

1. Between 2017 and July 2021, Valverde sold reseller credits to ‘J.R.D’, a person known to the Grand Jury, for between $9 and $15 per credit. J.R.D resold the credits to customers for $25, enabling them to view the “publicly performed” works.

2. Between 2018 and May 2020, Valverde sold reseller credits to ‘M.D’, a person known to the Gran Jury, for between $7 and $15 per credit. M.D resold the credits to customers for $25, enabling them to view the “publicly performed” works.

“All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371,” the indictment adds. (18 U.S.C. § 371, Conspiracy to Defraud the United States)

Count Two

In essence, count two in the indictment repeats the allegation that Valverde operated a digital transmission service, contrary to the PLSA.

Here, however, it’s alleged that on an unknown date, his Fenix service transmitted “one or more works being prepared for commercial public performance,” and where the defendant “knew or should have known that the work was being prepared for commercial public performance.”

Under the PLSA these violations can dramatically increase the maximum penalties available to the court.

The indictment doesn’t reveal which rightsholders’ content was infringed via the service, i.e which TV shows or movies were publicly performed. The other question involves the content allegedly obtained from DISH. If the content was obtained from DISH at the time it was broadcast to the public by DISH, as is usually the case, it raises the question of how it was still being prepared for broadcast. Court filings offer no explanation.

Valverde Enters Plea

On June 9, 2023, at a district court in South Carolina, Valverde entered a plea of not guilty. He was subsequently given additional time to “review discovery, discuss the case, and negotiate further with the Government in an effort to resolve the case short of trial.”

With a full trial looming, a plea agreement dated November 23 reveals that Valverde had agreed to plead guilty to Count 2 of the indictment. This count covers the provision of the illicit digital service and the works being prepared for commercial public performance; as such the potential penalties are significantly increased.

In a judgment published Tuesday, District Judge Mary Geiger Lewis sentenced Valverde to twelve months and one day in federal prison followed by three years of supervised release.

The financial components of Valverde’s sentence include a $250,000 fine plus $22,639.27 in restitution. That amount is payable to NagraStar, the anti-piracy company partially owned by DISH that seems to have carried out the investigation against Valverde, in part at least.

The fates of ‘J.R.D’ and ‘M.D’ are unknown.

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

Last November, IPTV subscription resellers operating from channels4cheap.com (C4C) and purchase-iptv.com found themselves being sued by broadcaster DISH Network.

After what appears to have been a handful of trouble-free years of trading, the lawsuit named Texas residents John Gwaka Magembe and Joyce Berry as the alleged operators of the C4C website.

The decision to sell packages branded as Beast TV, a service that was taken down three years earlier by several Hollywood studios, Netflix, and Canada’s Bell Media, may have been a ploy to exploit existing brand awareness among pirates. The obvious downside was awareness among rightsholders.

DISH Was More Aware Than Expected

“Defendants are trafficking in the Beast TV internet streaming television service a/k/a Channels4Cheap through their websites located at www.channels4cheap.com and its sister website www.purchase-iptv.com,” the company wrote in its complaint.

“Defendants sell Device Codes [subscriptions] to the Service on the C4C Website for $2 for a forty eight hour trial; $15 for one month; $40 for three months; $70 for six months; and $120 for twelve months, depending on the option selected by the user.”

And then came the body blow. DISH produced a screenshot to show that a person, also called John Magembe, was among the top 10 resellers of Beast TV subscriptions when the platform was in full swing.

In common with many other lawsuits of this type, this seemed destined for a predictable outcome. The final judgment would be months in the making so, in the interim, DISH took on another reseller.

IPTV and Astrology Align

In a complaint filed at a California court in February, DISH and Sling described Mr.Sharma of Sharma IPTV, and his company Astro Vastu Solutions (AVS), as traffickers of an illegal streaming service. Flyers distributed in the Bay Area advertising the service had led to DISH investigators handing over $135 for a subscription test purchase.

Payment for the alleged 10,000 channel service was made to Astro Vastu Solutions LLC. DISH and Sling alleged that this was to separate the name Sharma IPTV from transactions, with users asked to disguise their payments as something unrelated, such as an astrology consultation. Evidence presented in court reveals that the DISH test purchase was recorded as a “3 month warranty” ( pdf ) .

Other documents filed in the lawsuit reveal that a cease-and-desist notice sent to Sharma IPTV last September contained an offer to settle the case. DISH and NagraStar cited similar cases where failing to settle ended up costing a lot more, the $100m+ judgment against Nitro TV, for example.

With the $1m settlement offer attracting no interest, the companies ultimately sued for willful violations of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2) and 17 U.S.C. § 1201(b)(1) when the defendants manufactured, offered to the public, provided, or otherwise trafficked in their infringing IPTV service. DISH and Sling also demanded an injunction under 17 U.S.C. § 1203(b)(1) plus actual or statutory damages of up to $2,500 for each infringement under § 1201.

On February 20, 2024, DISH and Sling filed their motion for preliminary injunction but were unable to personally serve the defendants until early March, leading to a request to continue the hearing on May 30, 2024, around a month from now.

Then, seemingly out of the blue, a note appeared on the docket last week. It revealed that since the owner of Sharma IPTV was representing himself, he would appreciate some help from the clerk of the court “to process and serve documents to other parties.”

Exactly what that note means in the context of the lawsuit, which started with a rejected $1m settlement offer and escalated from there, isn’t made clear from the docket.

What is clear, however, is that the very next day DISH and Sling dismissed all of their claims in the lawsuit.

An accompanying note states that the notice of dismissal was served on the defendants at their last known addresses. Beyond that, there’s no additional information to explain why such a serious matter suddenly ended with no mention of a settlement.

Contrasting Fortunes

For channels4cheap.com (C4C) and purchase-iptv.com operators John Gwaka Magembe and Joyce Berry, their fates diverged considerably, even from each other. It transpired that Berry is Magembe’s mother and the reason she appeared as a defendant in the lawsuit was her son’s unauthorized use of her bank account to receive payments for IPTV subscriptions. Berry was dismissed from the case, Magembe was left to face the music alone.

In a judgment handed down April 26, 2024, District Judge Mark T. Pittman noted that the plaintiffs had filed a well-pleaded complaint but the defendants’ failure to defend the claims against them had “brought the adversarial process to a halt, causing substantial prejudice to Plaintiffs.”

Based on this and other factors, a default judgment was warranted ( 1 , 2 ). On top of a broad injunction to restrain any similar conduct, Judge Pittman said that Magembe must pay damages totaling over $30 million in connection with the sale of at least 12,000 ‘device codes’ (subscriptions).

The conclusions of these cases couldn’t have been more different, despite being about broadly the same thing: reselling IPTV subscriptions to services operated by people other than the defendants in these cases.

Predictions sometimes miss the mark but for those who like a wager, it’s more than likely that new information will play a role when DISH moves on to its next targets. And the targets after those.

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

Tracking BitTorrent pirates isn’t all that hard since IP addresses are openly broadcasted. With help from Internet providers, these addresses can then be linked to account holders.

ISPs don’t hand over this data voluntarily; they typically require a subpoena or court order before taking action.

In the United States, subpoenas are typically obtained by filing a copyright complaint in federal court against a “John Doe” who’s known only by an IP address. Most of these cases are filed against a single person, which makes it a relatively expensive process.

DMCA Shortcut

In recent years, some rightsholders have used a shortcut to bypass this costly process. Taking a page from the RIAA’s early efforts to identify music pirates in the early 2000s, they used the DMCA subpoena process to obtain the personal details of suspected copyright infringers.

Unlike regular subpoenas, the DMCA equivalents are not reviewed by a judge and only require a signature from the court clerk. While several courts effectively banned the practice two decades ago, the new attempts cited fresh interpretations and conflicting case law , to back up their requests.

This tactic worked as many courts went along with these new requests, requiring Internet providers to identify hundreds, if not thousands of alleged pirates.

It’s not always clear what the rightsholders do with this personal information, as the eventual follow-ups fall outside the court’s purview. Typically, however, rightsholders reach out to alleged pirates privately to negotiate some type of settlement; either monetary, in exchange for information, or both.

Cox Intervenes with Success

Most of these recent DMCA subpoenas progressed quietly, with little fanfare or pushback, but that changed last year when a Cox subscriber filed an objection in court.

The objection triggered Cox Communications to intervene. The Internet provider decided to challenge the use of the DMCA subpoena tool, as detailed in DMCA §512(h) . Similar to the earlier opposition against RIAA’s attempts, the ISP argued that DMCA subpoenas don’t apply to mere conduit providers.

The challenge was fiercely contested by the rightsholders, including film companies Voltage Holdings, Millennium Funding, and Capstone Studios, who argued that ISPs can be required to respond to DMCA subpoenas.

Mere Conduit?

The main contention in this case is whether DMCA subpoenas apply to regular Internet providers. Cox argued that they don’t, as it’s a mere conduit provider. This falls under the DMCA §512(a) safe harbor, which does not require ISPs to take anything down, as nothing is stored by the ISP.

DMCA subpoenas don’t apply to DMCA §512(a) services, but do apply to other providers that store or link to infringing content directly. As such, the movie companies’ request should be denied.

A magistrate judge followed Cox in this reasoning and recommended quashing the subpoena. The Hawaiian District Court agreed, and earlier this year it effectively slammed the breaks on the DMCA shortcut .

The full ruling is much more detailed than the simplified version presented above, but the ultimate conclusion is that movie companies can’t use the DMCA subpoena to unmask alleged BitTorrent pirates. In addition, the court held that any information they had already obtained this way, could no longer be used.

Court Keeps Shortcut Closed

Hoping to change the court’s opinion, the filmmakers swiftly submitted a motion for reconsideration. In addition, they asked to stay the order to destroy any information that was previously obtained, pending a potential appeal.

In the motion for reconsideration, the movie companies argued that Cox and other ISPs are not just mere conduit providers under DMCA §512(a) ; they would also fall under DMCA §512(d) , as they can remove or disable ‘references or links’ to infringing content.

If this argument succeeds, a DMCA subpoena would be valid, as these do apply to services that fall under DMCA §512(d) .

The movie companies used various arguments to make their case. For example, they argued that IP addresses are in themselves “references or links to infringing material” which can be disabled through null-routing. In addition, Cox can respond to takedown notices by implementing filters or blocking ports.

The court reviewed these reconsideration arguments but didn’t change its conclusion. While null-routing would work, the measure goes far beyond disabling “access to infringing material” and is therefore not authorized by the DMCA.

“Null routing a subscriber’s IP address is not equivalent to ‘remov[ing], or disabl[ing] access to’ links to infringing material or activity, because null routing a user’s IP address has the outsize effect of terminating that address’s connection to the network,” the court writes.

The same applies to filtering techniques and port blocking, which go further than directly addressing alleged copyright infringements.

“[T]his argument would fail for the same reasons as Petitioners’ ‘null routing’ argument—whether ISPs can in fact ‘remove, or disable access to’ infringing material or not, it would not change the court’s interpretation of §512(d).”

The full motion for reconsideration includes several other attempts to classify Cox as more than a mere conduit provider, but these all fail. Ultimately, the court denied the motion for reconsideration, keeping the DMCA shortcut closed.

Piracy Settlements and User Data

The order is a setback for the rightsholders and also presents a new problem. The movie companies previously used the subpoena to identify Cox subscribers, and already settled with some of them.

Since the court ordered all information from the subpoena to be destroyed and returned, the movie companies fear that Cox will delete all subscriber data, while they still have the option to appeal.

In addition, the movie companies used settlements to obtain testimony from subscribers on their piracy habits, which they would like to use as evidence against pirate sites. If the settlement data is deleted, that evidence can no longer be used.

“If Petitioners destroy this information, their legal proof for asserting legal relief against the piracy website and the subscriber data will be lost,” the movie companies argued, asking the court to stay this ‘destruction’ order.

The movie companies don’t mention any pending lawsuits against pirate sites but they previously identified “watchmovierulz” and “piratebay” as sites that were mentioned as part of a settlement.

The court reviewed the arguments but didn’t change its order. The court notes that Cox already agreed to retain the contested subscriber data pending further appeals, so that will not be lost.

The court further clarified that all pending settlement discussions have to end immediately. In addition, the movie companies can’t use the evidence obtained from earlier settlements in potential lawsuits against pirate sites.

“Petitioners may maintain records of, for example, correspondence and binding settlement agreements with subscribers, but may not continue to seek settlement with any subscriber who has not yet concluded an agreement, and may not use information received from subscribers as evidence in litigation, e.g., against piracy websites.”

All in all, the court’s latest order is another setback for the movie companies but it’s not the end. The filmmakers have already indicated that they plan to appeal the case.

Needless to say, this could prove to be a crucial legal battle for copyright holders, Internet providers, and anyone accused of pirating content via BitTorrent going forward. At the same time, it may also cast doubt on how DMCA subpoenas are used against other services, such as Cloudflare and domain registrars.

—

A copy of the Hawaiian District Court’s order denying the motion for reconsideration, as well as the motion to stay, is available here (pdf)

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

The non-profit Internet Archive ( IA ) aims to preserve digital history for generations to come.

The organization literally archives key parts of the Internet, copying older versions of websites to preserve them for future generations. This information becomes more and more valuable as time passes by.

IA has plenty of other archive projects too. For example, it operates a library that offers a broad collection of digital media, including books, which patrons can borrow upon request.

Thousands of libraries have digital lending services but IA’s approach is different. The organization doesn’t license authorized digital copies from publishers; instead, its books are scanned and digitized in-house. Each copy can only be loaned to one person at a time, to mimic the lending attributes of physical books.

Lawsuit and Appeal

Internet Archive believes that its approach falls under fair use but publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley, and Penguin Random House disagree. They filed a lawsuit in 2020 equating IA’s controlled digital lending operation to copyright infringement.

Earlier this year a New York federal court concluded that the library is indeed liable for copyright infringement . The court’s decision effectively put an end to IA’s self-scanning library, at least for books from the publishers in suit.

IA is not letting go without a fight and in December the non-profit filed its opening brief at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, hoping to reverse the judgment. Among other things, IA argued that its lending activity causes no financial harm is substantially different from the ebook licensing market.

Fearing a ‘Napster moment’ for books , the publishers rejected the notion that outsiders can run their own digitization programs and operate distribution platforms, without rightsholders being involved. Rightsholders should remain in control of all digital copies to be monetized on their terms.

Both sides were supported by amicus briefs from interested parties, a clear indication of what’s at stake in this dispute. Before the court case moves forward, however, IA replied to the publishers’ Napster comments and other critiques.

IA Points Out ‘Critical Misconceptions’

The Archive maintains that its lending service is fair use. The organization points out that the publishers have several misconceptions about its service.

IA points out that it doesn’t lend out digital copies without limits. For each physical book, it will only lend a single digitized copy at the time. This fixed “owned-to-loaned ratio” sets it apart from many of the copyright-infringing services mentioned by the publishers..

“Controlled digital lending is not equivalent to posting an ebook online for anyone to read or copy or to peer-to-peer file-sharing by companies like Napster. Neither practice is based on use of a library’s lawfully acquired physical copy, and neither ensures that only the one person entitled to borrow the book (or recording) can access it at a time.”

IA further notes that it has no profit motive, which differs from companies that resell digital copies without permission. In addition, the enormous work that goes into digitizing the books makes it hard for others to do the same, so fears of a flood of similar services are overblown.

“[B]ecause of the huge investment required to operate a legally compliant controlled lending system and the controls defining the practice, finding fair use here would not trigger any of the doomsday consequences for rightsholders that Publishers and their amici claim to fear,” IA writes.

Libraries Have Broad Missions

The brief goes on to counter the publishers’ “cramped” view of what libraries are for. Libraries are not just outfits that lend physical books to people nearby; their missions are much broader.

IA says that libraries make books available to a broad public, no matter their social status or location. They also preserve books for future generations and ensure that readers can enjoy books without giving up their privacy.

“Libraries provide readers more egalitarian access to a wider range of books, overcoming socioeconomic and geographic barriers by sharing resources with other libraries through interlibrary loans.”

“They also build permanent collections to preserve books, including older editions, for future generations. And they protect reader privacy, preventing disclosure of patron records that could chill access to information,” IA adds.

IA’s lending service advances this mission and was launched, in part, because the current ebook licensing schemes are seen as too restrictive.

A “Copyright” Balancing Act

The parties broadly agree on what the lending program entails and how it operates from a technical perspective. However, it’s the purpose and consequences that mostly determine whether a service is ‘fair use’, and here they have diametrically opposing views.

The publishers have argued that IA offers digital copies of their books without permission, which directly competes with its legal licensing business.

IA, in turn, doesn’t deny that copyrights play a role but stresses that its controlled lending is fair use. The reply highlights several arguments to make this point and concludes that the scale clearly tips in its favor.

The reply brief notes that the lower court didn’t properly balance the interests required by copyright law, largely overlooking the benefits the service has to the public at large, while strongly focusing on the financial aspect of copyright instead.

“[The District Court] decision barely mentions copyright’s ultimate purpose of ‘promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts’. Publishers do not deny that IA’s use serves this purpose; instead, they ask the Court to ignore that service and focus instead on copyright’s financial incentives for creativity.”

IA cites the Warhol Supreme Court case which made clear that fair use is a balancing act between the interests of the public and rightsholders. In this case, it believes that the balance favors its lending service.

“Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts. The district court’s failure to consider the latter contravenes decades of precedent recognizing that rewards are a secondary consideration, while promoting availability is primary,” IA informs the court.

“Here, the record shows that the balancing act between these purposes is better served by allowing the use than by preventing it,” IA concludes.

—

A copy of the Internet Archive’s reply brief, submitted at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, is available here (pdf)

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

Since its launch early February, Italy’s Piracy Shield system and its operators have been at the center of a series of controversies.

From blocking innocent platforms and bizarre public denials claiming that never actually happened , to the leaking of Piracy Shield source code online and claims that didn’t happen either , a more difficult debut would be hard to imagine.

Yet with legitimate complaints from negatively-affected members of the public being given short shrift, and access to information requests pushed aside, the groundwork is in place for additional controversy further down the line.

AGCOM Issues its First Piracy-Shield Related Fine

Without assistance from Italian ISPs, blocking pirate services would be impossible in Italy. Against the wishes of many, however, their role in the system is enshrined in law.

When the Piracy Shield system churns out domains and IP addresses to be blocked, ISPs must ensure that none of their customers can access them within 30 minutes. Associated costs are the ISPs’ burden too, as are the fines they face for non-compliance. Rightsholders, meanwhile, face no sanctions whatsoever for their own blunders.

ISP association ASSOProvider has protested this imbalance from the beginning; it represents smaller companies likely to be disproportionately affected by the imposition of additional costs. Last year, ASSOProvider mounted a legal challenge and predictably ran into the combined might of telecoms regulator AGCOM and Piracy Shield’s corporate backers, including top-tier football league Serie A.

The challenge failed to stop the launch of Piracy Shield but when predictions of over-blocking became reality, ASSOProvider filed an official information request to obtain data relating to the program thus far. AGCOM’s response was to fine ASSOProvider for obstructing its Piracy Shield supervisory activities; specifically, for not providing a list of the ISPs it represents, despite AGCOM already being well aware of their names.

That the first fine linked to the new anti-piracy regime targeted non-pirates hasn’t gone unnoticed. ASSOProvider seems to have drawn energy and motivation from it, contrary to the intended effect.

New Legal Challenge Filed at the Council of State

Working with the Sarzana Law Firm of Rome, ASSOProvider will now challenge the legality of the regulatory provisions underpinning the AGCOM-supervised Piracy Shield.

“The dozens of reports from users, businesses and associations, whose rights have been unjustly violated, have convinced the Association to continue its battle for legality and the protection of citizens’ rights on the internet,” an announcement from Sarzana & Associati reads.

“In recent months the Association had already requested the list of access inhibition measures implemented through the platform, especially since the inhibitions seem to have also involved subjects completely unrelated to piracy activities,” it continues, referencing the access to information request filed last month.

The Consiglio di Stato (‘Council of State’) is the body that ensures public administration in Italy complies with relevant law. The specifics of ASSOProvider’s challenge will appear in due course but since the Council has jurisdiction over all administrative authorities in Italy, the association will seek a robust review and a positive outcome.

Giovanbattista Frontera, President of the Board of Directors of ASSOProvider, says its aims are clear; greater transparency in order to identify the critical issues that can compromise the battle against internet piracy.

“The association I represent intends first of all to thank the free press and the countless ‘straight-backed’ journalists who covered the Piracy Shield affair with professionalism and independence, in an objectively difficult context. What happened to completely innocent individuals who had nothing to do with piracy is there for all to see,” Frontera says.

“ASSOProvider will continue to invoke the principles of legality and protection of rights before the Judiciary, as it has always done and will not be afraid to report the errors of the system before all possible jurisdictions and institutions, in compliance with the law.”

Predictable Action By Legal Streaming Services

Piracy Shield typically aims to prevent consumer access to pirate IPTV services, especially those that provide access to live sports broadcasts. Subscribers to these services typically mention the expense of legal services as a driving factor; paying a fraction of the cost for a pirate product is clearly more attractive than paying perhaps ten times more.

Depending on opinion, legal services are over-priced because football in general lives beyond its means, they simply like to profiteer, or because of thieving pirates. If these people paid their fair share, companies could reduce their prices to all, some have claimed.

As we’ve heard from AGCOM and Serie A since Piracy Shield launched in February, the system works; pirates are getting blocked left and right, and pirate services are having big problems servicing customers in Italy. If that is indeed true, it would be interesting to know the background to Sky’s decision to increase the price of its sport and football packages in Italy.

DDaY reports that annual subscribers will see the sport component increase from 16 euros to 22 euros, a total of 90 euros per month. The football package will increase from 5 euros to 8 euros per month. Those who subscribe to the Open offer will see the sports pack increased from 20 euros to 26.90 euros per month, with football increasing from 5 to 8 euros per month.

If it’s true that Piracy Shield is definitely working, those who predicted falling prices appear to be wrong. In theory, at least.

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

In recent years, copyright holders have paid close attention to a growing number of large piracy services with connections to Vietnam.

Popular brands including Fmovies, AniWave, 123movies, BestBuyIPTV, 2embed, and Y2mate are all linked to the Asian country, which was recently branded a ‘piracy haven’ .

BestBuyIPTV Conviction

To curb this trend, western rightsholders have been working with local authorities to bring local investigations and enforcement efforts up to par. While this process takes time, there was a breakthrough last week.

The People’s Court of Hanoi handed BestBuyIPTV operator Le Hai Nam a 30-month suspended prison sentence. In addition, the man must pay the equivalent of $4,000 in local currency, after having paid $12,000 in restitution previously.

BestBuyIPTV is known as one of the most popular IPTV services. The subscription platform has been repeatedly called out as a notorious piracy market by the US Trade Representative, as recently as this year.

The defendant reportedly pleaded guilty to his role in the BestBuyIPTV operation. While a copy of the verdict is not immediately available, a release shared by rightsholders attributed the following quote to the Hanoi court Judge.

“The defendant has violated the provisions of the law which protect the copyright and related rights of the Motion Picture Association’s members and the English Premier League,” Judge Le Hai Yen said.

According to the Judge, these types of crimes are a danger to society and should be strictly enforced and prosecuted, to send a deterrent to other operators of pirate sites and services.

First Ever Online Piracy Conviction

The prosecution follows referrals from the Premier League and Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment ( ACE ), who note that this is the first-ever online piracy conviction in Vietnam.

The rightsholders see last week’s conviction as an important milestone that will set a precedent in Vietnam. It’s a clear signal that online pirate sites and services won’t be tolerated, they say.

“This result should serve as a stark warning to anyone involved in the illegal supply of Premier League streams in Vietnam. It is the result of a strong partnership between the Vietnamese authorities and local law enforcement, ACE and the Premier League,” says Kevin Plumb, Premier League’s General Counsel.

Karyn Temple, MPA’s Senior Executive Vice President, shares this view and hopes that the Vietnamese authorities will move onto other high profile targets next, which could include the popular streaming site Fmovies .

“We eagerly await similar action from Vietnamese law enforcement on other longstanding priority targets engaged in digital piracy on a global scale,” Temple notes, without explicitly naming any.

BestBuyIPTV is Online?

Interestingly, the BestBuyIPTV threat may not be completely dealt with yet. MPA previously called out the ‘Bestbuyiptv.biz’ domain in relation to the popular service, which remains online today.

“BestBuyIPTV is extremely popular in the United States & Europe,” MPA wrote at the time, adding that “the operators are located in Vietnam.”

It’s possible that other operators of the service managed the service online, which would put the conviction’s deterrent effect in doubt. Or was the sentenced operator perhaps linked to another BestBuyIPTV service?

We have asked the MPA for clarification, as its press release makes no mention of this, and will update the article when an official response comes in.

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

Spain found itself at the center of a worldwide controversy last month when it was revealed that various rightsholders had somehow managed to convince a local judge to block Telegram in its entirety .

Under intense pressure, the judge quickly rolled back the decision after an advisor concluded that the planned measure was massively disproportionate. Just weeks later, a row over an app that’s no longer available from any official app store, seems to be heading towards another controversy and yet more debate on what constitutes a proportionate response to online piracy.

This time top-tier football league LaLiga stands front and center.

Newplay: Popular .M3U Player Unpopular With LaLiga

For an explanation of the capabilities of the Newplay app, here’s what LaLiga itself told the European Commission in a 2022 submission to its Counterfeiting and Piracy Watch List ( pdf, translated )

The ‘Newplay IPTV’ player application, developed by ITECH SLU, is one of the main player apps focused on Spain. In 2021, more than 900,000 users downloaded the app through Google Play, in Spain alone. This application has its own website (www.newplay.site) and has various profiles on social networks and communication channels: Telegram (+17k members); Twitch (+2,000 followers); Instagram (+29.2k followers); YouTube (23k subscribers). Through these, the use of the app is promoted. As can be seen in the attached evidence, through this application users can access various audiovisual content such as sports, TV channels, series, movies, etc.

That the description above offered plenty of facts and figures for everything except the alleged infringement, which only gets a line of attention right at the end, isn’t exactly typical of these kinds of submissions. The evidence amounted to a screenshot of a video of the app on YouTube, showing icons for various TV channels, two of which appeared to relate to LaLiga.

Crucially, there were no claims that the app arrives in the hands of users already configured to supply LaLiga match streams, nor was there any mention that the app requires users to supply their own M3U playlists. However, there was a screenshot of a comment made by a user querying an in-app message (“It asks me to enter a URL, what do I have to do?”) and two responses.

One response appeared to be from someone affiliated with Newplay, who wrote: “You have to add or create a channel list.” The other response linked to a URL where a playlist could be obtained. If that playlist had been posted by someone working for Newplay, that could’ve caused problems. There are no signs that was the case though; in isolation it only adds weight to the claim that no channels were provided in the app.

LaLiga Takes Complaint to Court

In the same month as the submission, April 2022, LaLiga walked away from a Spanish court (Juzgado de. Instrucción Nº 1 de Cieza) with an order that targeted Newplay.

The order is referenced multiple times on the LaLiga website but no copy has been posted for public consumption and, thus far, we’ve had no luck locating a copy. The big question is whether the order was handed down after an adversarial procedure or one that relied purely on evidence supplied by LaLiga.

What does seem clear, however, is that the order required various intermediaries to take action to undermine Newplay’s ability to remain functional. Whether the companies took action before or after the order was handed down isn’t clear but Google, Apple, and Huawei acted similarly by removing Newplay from their app stores.

But for LaLiga’s top man, that wasn’t enough. Last September, Javier Tebas revealed that LaLiga had “eliminated” 58 pirate apps, by unspecified means, together worth a million downloads in Spain. He said that having “eliminated” the apps, LaLiga wanted Google to ‘locate’ apps already downloaded onto users phones, so they too could be “eliminated”. If the same can be done for child abuse images, then the same should apply to piracy tools, Tebas said.

There was no official response from Google, but it’s not difficult to see why the prospect of digging into users’ phones, to remotely delete content, could be problematic. The privacy implications alone could cause huge headaches, as LaLiga is well aware; a 250,000 euro fine for turning fans phones into piracy spying devices should’ve been an instant reminder, logically at least.

Instead, LaLiga is doubling down

According to an eLDiario.es report, LaLiga has now asked the investigating judge in the Newplay case to charge the local directors of Google, Apple, and Huawei, with “a crime of serious disobedience.” This relates to their alleged failures to prevent users of their app ecosystems from continuing to use downloaded copies of Newplay that still exist on their devices.

It’s a crime that carries a sentence of up to a year in prison.

In these preliminary proceedings, Google, Apple, and Huawei as corporate entities also stand accused of the same “crime of serious disobedience.” They also stand accused of cooperating with Newplay’s developer while profiting from his allegedly infringing, ad-supported activities.

“The person under investigation used his ‘simple’ video player as a necessary instrument for his clients to access the Television services he offered in exchange for a subscription or advertising, violating the rights of the content owners,” LaLiga informed the court, as recalled by elDiario.es .

In addition to removing the app from their stores, the order required Google, Apple, and Huawei to “prevent users” who had downloaded app from “accessing the application.” It further ordered them to “immediately cease payment of commissions” derived from Newplay’s paid version (without ads) and make available to the court “the amounts that may be pending delivery” to the Newplay developer.

According to LaLiga, the companies haven’t complied in either respect. All three refused to comment for legal reasons.

As reported this weekend, the app Smart IPTV was blocked by ISPs in Spain recently . In common with Newplay, Smart IPTV is also an .M3U player and comes with no infringing content or links.

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

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

Many ISPs have been reluctant to take such drastic measures, which triggered a wave of copyright infringement lawsuits in recent years with WideOpenWest ( WOW! ) as one of the targets .

The Colorado-based Internet provider was sued by a group of movie companies including Millennium Media and Voltage Pictures. The filmmakers accuse the ISP of failing to disconnect the accounts of subscribers who were repeatedly flagged for sharing copyrighted material via BitTorrent.

The movie companies hold WOW! liable for these pirating activities, which could lead to millions of dollars in damages. The ISP rejects the claims and responded with a motion to dismiss, which was denied last year , and the case remains ongoing today.

Multi-Million Dollar Lawsuit Expansion

After the case was stalled for over a year, the movie companies requested permission to submit an amended complaint, which would add seven new plaintiffs and more than 300 new works.

The proposals raised the stakes significantly. Instead of 57 works, good for maximum statutory damages of roughly $8 million, an expansion to roughly 375 works would increase the statutory maximum to $56 million.

In addition to the monetary stakes, the proposed update also introduced evidence from two new third-party piracy tracking companies, Irdeto and Facterra. The initial complaint only included piracy tracking information from anti-piracy partner Maverickeye.

WOW protested these additions, but the court allowed the movie companies to go ahead. This week, they filed their second amended complaint at the Colorado federal court, making the changes official.

Same Claims, Higher Stakes

The nature of the claims against WOW! haven’t changed. The movie companies accuse the Internet provider of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, as well as DMCA violations.

The complaint lists several examples of WOW! subscribers who, according to the referenced piracy tracking data, repeatedly shared copyright-infringing content including plaintiffs’ films.

WOW! purportedly received tens of thousands of infringement notices and was allegedly aware of these piracy activities. However, the ISP decided not to take any action as that could hurt its revenues, the movie companies allege.

“Defendant knew that if it terminated or otherwise prevented repeat infringer subscribers from using its service to infringe, or made it less attractive for such use, Defendant would enroll fewer new subscribers, lose existing subscribers, and ultimately lose revenue,” the amended complaint reads.

Redditors and Site Blocking

In addition to IP-address logs and other evidence, the movie companies also cite screenshots from Reddit users who discussed WOW!’s handling of piracy notices, or its lack thereof. They suggest that this acted as a draw to potential subscribers.

“The ability of subscribers ‘who want it all’ to use Defendant’s high speed service to ‘intensively upload and download’ Plaintiffs’ Works without having their services terminated despite multiple notices being sent to Defendant acts as a powerful draw for subscribers of Defendant’s service,” they write.

Besides terminating accounts of subscribers whose connections are repeatedly used to pirate, the ISP could have taken other ‘simple’ actions as well. For example, by blocking notorious ‘pirate’ sites such as torrent sites YTS and (the now defunct) RARB.

“Upon information and belief, Defendant refuses to block or limit its subscribers from accessing notorious piracy websites out of fear of losing subscriber revenue,” the complaint reads.

Increased Damages and More

To compensate for this wrongdoing, the plaintiffs request statutory damages up to the maximum of $150,000 per work. With roughly 375 titles in suit, damages could reach $56,250,000 for the copyright infringements alone. The DMCA violations could add millions more to this tally, the movie companies note.

On top of the damages increase, the movie companies still seek far-reaching injunctive relief. They specifically request an order requiring WOW! to terminate the accounts of subscribers targeted by three unique infringement notices in three days.

In addition to this mandatory three-strikes policy, WOW! should also block all alleged pirate sites listed in the USTR’s annual overview of notorious markets . This includes the likes of The Pirate Bay, FMovies, and YTS.

Finally, the movie companies request an order that requires the Internet provider to disclose the identities of account holders whose accounts are flagged for copyright infringement. Needless to say, such an order would allow the companies to target the alleged pirates directly.

—

A copy of the movie companies’ second amended complaint, filed against WOW! at the US District Court for Colorado, is available here (pdf)

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

At the start of the 2010s, Movie2K was one of the most visited sites on the web.

The site was an early adopter of pirate streaming and at its peak, secured a spot among the twenty most-visited websites in Germany, beating Twitter and Amazon.

Movie2K’s success generated a healthy revenue stream which its operators converted to a new and exciting ‘currency’ called Bitcoin. It’s assumed that the goal was to keep the haul hidden from prying eyes, but more on that later.

The site’s reign ended with a surprise shut down in the spring of 2013. Many believed that legal troubles had plagued the site, a suspicion that was eventually confirmed years later when Dresden police announced several arrests .

Early Arrests and Prison Sentences

These initial arrests targeted one of the main operators, who received a one-year prison sentence for copyright infringement in 2023, as well as an eight-month sentence for money laundering, fraud, and tax evasion.

In the same criminal prosecution, the site’s financial agent received a ten-month suspended prison sentence. All sentences were suspended and both men issued a full confession. In addition, at least one of the defendants helped the investigation into other suspects.

The authorities had also seized 2,700 bitcoins. These are currently valued at €160 million but were previously exchanged by the authorities in an “emergency sale” for 38.6 million euros. The money remains in custody pending a final decision on the fate of these criminal proceeds.

While 2,700 bitcoins was already the largest seizure in a piracy-related prosecution, this figure was topped by the nearly 50,000 bitcoins the German authorities voluntarily seized earlier this year.

Fresh Charges

This second Bitcoin heist is connected to an ongoing prosecution where the Dresden General Prosecutor’s Office announced its charges this week, more than a decade after the site shut down.

The main suspect is one of Movie2K’s main admins, who remained on the run for a long time. The 40-year-old German man has been listed as wanted internationally since 2019. He was eventually arrested in Spain last year and extradited to Germany to face prosecution.

The defendant now faces charges including unauthorized commercial exploitation of copyrighted works and commercial money laundering. The second defendant, a 37-year-old Polish man, is charged with commercial money laundering and tax evasion.

The Polish defendant was a friend of the main suspect and reportedly received a salary in Bitcoin for his work at the pirate streaming portal.

As mentioned by Tarnkappe , the crackdown and investigation into Movie2K also led to a real estate agent from Berlin who allegedly received millions of euros from the site’s operators through a Dutch mailbox company.

The Prosecutor’s Office notes that the Leipzig district court has yet to admit further charges against the real estate agent, who reportedly invested the money in physical properties.

Billions in Bitcoin

While the charges announced this week are significant, the earlier seizure of 50,000 bitcoins stands out most. These are valued at roughly 3 billion euros today and, as far as we know, they’re yet to be sold.

“The investigation into the handling of the seized Bitcoins is ongoing,” the Dresden Prosecutor’s Office notes.

It’s remarkable to see the recent developments in this case, considering that the site itself has been offline for eleven years. That said, with billions in Bitcoin at stake, perseverance seems to have paid off.

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