Rampant piracy of live sporting events has been a hot topic in Europe for several years. Anti-piracy measures against relatively static targets have their place but preventing access to pirated live streams is much more difficult.

After calling for assistance from the European Commission, many rightsholders are hoping for new legislation to hold intermediaries more accountable. Until then, most sport-linked rightsholders continue to rely on site blocking measures.

After years of fine-tuning, courts all over Europe understand the process well and most appreciate the difficulties faced by rightsholders. Cases are commonly assessed to ensure that injunctive relief is warranted, measures requested are proportionate, and any negative effects on non-infringing third parties will be as low as practically possible.

LaLiga / Telefonica Order: Massive Overblocking

Sysadmin @jaumepons has been crunching data concerning a blocking order previously obtained by LaLiga and Telefonica to block 119 streaming sites. It was granted on the basis there would be no negative effects on internet users, but in February it became clear that hundreds, potentially thousands of innocent sites and users, were being blocked at the same time.

Appeals by Cloudflare and cybersecurity group RootedCON were dismissed by the issuing court; @jaumepons’ latest estimates published on Friday suggests those decisions came at a price.

LaLiga insists that its blocking is not indiscriminate and any overblocking is minimal. Unfortunately, even if the 2.7 million estimate was slashed to just 270, blocking two legal domains for every pirate domain isn’t proportionate and the harm inflicted is likely to be significant.

RootedCON Appeals to Constitutional Court

RootedCON previously stated it wouldn’t just stand by if nothing was done to protect internet users. With a complaint filed at Spain’s Constitutional Court, it is now making good on its word.

“At RootedCON, after 15 years promoting freedom, innovation, and critical thinking in the field of cybersecurity, we cannot stand idly by in the face of this outrage,” their statement reads.

“The measures adopted, lacking transparency, proportionality, and adequate safeguards, represent an extremely dangerous precedent for citizens’ digital rights and the Spanish technological ecosystem. We urge La Liga, the operators involved, and the judiciary to reflect on the serious impact of these types of decisions, which are more similar to the practices of authoritarian regimes of the last century than those of a modern, forward-looking democracy.”

Despite the serious nature of the ongoing controversy, until now it has generally lacked a political dimension.

The Spanish government’s only comment thus far (“We respect judicial decisions”) meets the standard every democratically elected government should strive for. The fly in the ointment is that the injunction was granted on the basis it would do no harm to third parties. As RootedCON suggests, momentum is building regardless.

“[I]n our appeal to the Constitutional Court, we request precautionary measures to curb the constant harassment suffered by both companies and users in our country, and we demand a public and technical debate in the Congress of Deputies on the limits of online control, following the initiative recently proposed by Representative Néstor Rego,” the statement concludes.

Politics Enters the Equation

Néstor Rego is a politician and a member of the Congress of Deputies of Spain. He’s the leader of the Galician Nationalist Bloc and in a statement posted to the party’s website, he calls on the government to “put a stop to the abusive and uncontrolled practices.”

“The State Government must take action on the matter given the repeated blocking of thousands of web pages because, if it does not do so, it implies an abandonment of its functions, leaving them in private hands that act for their own benefit and without control,” Rego says .

“[I]t is incomprehensible that private companies can block websites. The judicial authorization is absurd at this point, but it is not even respected, because that authorization establishes that no harm can be caused to third parties, and yes it is happening. The indiscriminate blocking by LaLiga and Movistar implies a violation of the rights of users and that is why the Government must act.”

LaLiga Responds to Complaints

During the last couple of weeks, momentum has noticeably increased among those who oppose blocking for the collateral damage it causes. Among them is José Luis Porquicho Prada, a journalist working at local news outlet Cádiz Directo.

On May 18, Prada published an article titled LaLiga blocks Cádiz Directo without evidence in its uncontrolled anti-piracy crusade , which revealed that LaLiga had started blocking cadizdirecto.com for no apparent reason. Prada reported that LaLiga was initially unresponsive so he was unable to explain that a mistake had been made.

“[C]ompletely innocent media outlets are being held accountable, without due process, without the right to defense, and without a shred of evidence. Fundamental rights enshrined in Article 24 of the Spanish Constitution, which guarantees effective judicial protection and the right to defense, are being violated,” Prada wrote as part of a polite but withering diatribe on recent events.

Response Perceived as Threatening – Then Bewildering

Late last week Prada revealed that he’d received a response via burofax, a type of secure postal service. He claims that the correspondence was presented in a “markedly threatening tone and lacking any willingness to resolve the conflict.”

Prada says it was signed by none other than LaLiga president Javier Tebas, who advised that cadizdirecto.com had been blocked because it is “hosted on an IP addresses from which intellectual property rights are repeatedly violated.”

Prada clarified that the site uses a CDN and then revealed what LaLiga expected from him. Translated from Spanish ( original here ), Prada explained as follows:

It transpires that Prada wasn’t the only journalist to receive similar correspondence. Political analysis outlet El Orden Mundial was also provided with legal advice.

Posting on X, El Orden Mundial director Fernando Arancón spoke of “the barbarity that is being carried out by @LaLiga with the support of the judiciary,” before suddenly adopting a “something’s coming” tone.

“[LaLiga] have lost their way and are going to eat a Streisand textbook,” Arancón predicted.

Update: Statement from LaLiga

At LALIGA, as always, we respect and comply with the legal system. And, as it could not be otherwise, we respect the decision to file an appeal for constitutional protection before the Constitutional Court. An appeal that was already announced several weeks ago and still needs to pass the admissibility phase.

It is worth recalling that, already last March, the Commercial Court No. 6 of Barcelona fully dismissed the requests for annulment filed by Cloudflare and RootedCON, among others, against the final ruling issued on 18 December 2024, finding no violation of any fundamental rights. That decision reaffirmed that the legal action taken was in accordance with the law and is supported by the current legislation on intellectual property and information society services.

Furthermore, the court order validated the procedural legality of the case, explicitly declaring that there was no “lack of guarantees” and stating that “none of the arguments put forward by the various petitioners demonstrate any actual harm, nor is any such harm identified, quantified, or supported by any proposed evidence intended to directly or indirectly establish damage as a constituent element of the claim for annulment.”

The judicial ruling is fully reasoned and lawful, and also makes it clear that the petitioners lacked standing to invoke the rights they claimed to hold.

LALIGA remains steadfast in its commitment to combating audiovisual fraud in order to protect the audiovisual rights of the competition, its sustainability and that of the football clubs, as well as the broader sports and entertainment industry.

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

Rampant piracy of live sporting events has been a hot topic in Europe for several years. Anti-piracy measures against relatively static targets have their place but preventing access to pirated live streams is much more difficult.

After calling for assistance from the European Commission, many rightsholders are hoping for new legislation to hold intermediaries more accountable. Until then, most sport-linked rightsholders continue to rely on site blocking measures.

After years of fine-tuning, courts all over Europe understand the process well and most appreciate the difficulties faced by rightsholders. Cases are commonly assessed to ensure that injunctive relief is warranted, measures requested are proportionate, and any negative effects on non-infringing third parties will be as low as practically possible.

LaLiga / Telefonica Order: Massive Overblocking

Sysadmin @jaumepons has been crunching data concerning a blocking order previously obtained by LaLiga and Telefonica to block 119 streaming sites. It was granted on the basis there would be no negative effects on internet users, but in February it became clear that hundreds, potentially thousands of innocent sites and users, were being blocked at the same time.

Appeals by Cloudflare and cybersecurity group RootedCON were dismissed by the issuing court; @jaumepons’ latest estimates published on Friday suggests those decisions came at a price.

LaLiga insists that its blocking is not indiscriminate and any overblocking is minimal. Unfortunately, even if the 2.7 million estimate was slashed to just 270, blocking two legal domains for every pirate domain isn’t proportionate and the harm inflicted is likely to be significant.

RootedCON Appeals to Constitutional Court

RootedCON previously stated it wouldn’t just stand by if nothing was done to protect internet users. With a complaint filed at Spain’s Constitutional Court, it is now making good on its word.

“At RootedCON, after 15 years promoting freedom, innovation, and critical thinking in the field of cybersecurity, we cannot stand idly by in the face of this outrage,” their statement reads.

“The measures adopted, lacking transparency, proportionality, and adequate safeguards, represent an extremely dangerous precedent for citizens’ digital rights and the Spanish technological ecosystem. We urge La Liga, the operators involved, and the judiciary to reflect on the serious impact of these types of decisions, which are more similar to the practices of authoritarian regimes of the last century than those of a modern, forward-looking democracy.”

Despite the serious nature of the ongoing controversy, until now it has generally lacked a political dimension.

The Spanish government’s only comment thus far (“We respect judicial decisions”) meets the standard every democratically elected government should strive for. The fly in the ointment is that the injunction was granted on the basis it would do no harm to third parties. As RootedCON suggests, momentum is building regardless.

“[I]n our appeal to the Constitutional Court, we request precautionary measures to curb the constant harassment suffered by both companies and users in our country, and we demand a public and technical debate in the Congress of Deputies on the limits of online control, following the initiative recently proposed by Representative Néstor Rego,” the statement concludes.

Politics Enters the Equation

Néstor Rego is a politician and a member of the Congress of Deputies of Spain. He’s the leader of the Galician Nationalist Bloc and in a statement posted to the party’s website, he calls on the government to “put a stop to the abusive and uncontrolled practices.”

“The State Government must take action on the matter given the repeated blocking of thousands of web pages because, if it does not do so, it implies an abandonment of its functions, leaving them in private hands that act for their own benefit and without control,” Rego says .

“[I]t is incomprehensible that private companies can block websites. The judicial authorization is absurd at this point, but it is not even respected, because that authorization establishes that no harm can be caused to third parties, and yes it is happening. The indiscriminate blocking by LaLiga and Movistar implies a violation of the rights of users and that is why the Government must act.”

LaLiga Responds to Complaints

During the last couple of weeks, momentum has noticeably increased among those who oppose blocking for the collateral damage it causes. Among them is José Luis Porquicho Prada, a journalist working at local news outlet Cádiz Directo.

On May 18, Prada published an article titled LaLiga blocks Cádiz Directo without evidence in its uncontrolled anti-piracy crusade , which revealed that LaLiga had started blocking cadizdirecto.com for no apparent reason. Prada reported that LaLiga was initially unresponsive so he was unable to explain that a mistake had been made.

“[C]ompletely innocent media outlets are being held accountable, without due process, without the right to defense, and without a shred of evidence. Fundamental rights enshrined in Article 24 of the Spanish Constitution, which guarantees effective judicial protection and the right to defense, are being violated,” Prada wrote as part of a polite but withering diatribe on recent events.

Response Perceived as Threatening – Then Bewildering

Late last week Prada revealed that he’d received a response via burofax, a type of secure postal service. He claims that the correspondence was presented in a “markedly threatening tone and lacking any willingness to resolve the conflict.”

Prada says it was signed by none other than LaLiga president Javier Tebas, who advised that cadizdirecto.com had been blocked because it is “hosted on an IP addresses from which intellectual property rights are repeatedly violated.”

Prada clarified that the site uses a CDN and then revealed what LaLiga expected from him. Translated from Spanish ( original here ), Prada explained as follows:

It transpires that Prada wasn’t the only journalist to receive similar correspondence. Political analysis outlet El Orden Mundial was also provided with legal advice.

Posting on X, El Orden Mundial director Fernando Arancón spoke of “the barbarity that is being carried out by @LaLiga with the support of the judiciary,” before suddenly adopting a “something’s coming” tone.

“[LaLiga] have lost their way and are going to eat a Streisand textbook,” Arancón predicted.

Update: Statement from LaLiga

At LALIGA, as always, we respect and comply with the legal system. And, as it could not be otherwise, we respect the decision to file an appeal for constitutional protection before the Constitutional Court. An appeal that was already announced several weeks ago and still needs to pass the admissibility phase.

It is worth recalling that, already last March, the Commercial Court No. 6 of Barcelona fully dismissed the requests for annulment filed by Cloudflare and RootedCON, among others, against the final ruling issued on 18 December 2024, finding no violation of any fundamental rights. That decision reaffirmed that the legal action taken was in accordance with the law and is supported by the current legislation on intellectual property and information society services.

Furthermore, the court order validated the procedural legality of the case, explicitly declaring that there was no “lack of guarantees” and stating that “none of the arguments put forward by the various petitioners demonstrate any actual harm, nor is any such harm identified, quantified, or supported by any proposed evidence intended to directly or indirectly establish damage as a constituent element of the claim for annulment.”

The judicial ruling is fully reasoned and lawful, and also makes it clear that the petitioners lacked standing to invoke the rights they claimed to hold.

LALIGA remains steadfast in its commitment to combating audiovisual fraud in order to protect the audiovisual rights of the competition, its sustainability and that of the football clubs, as well as the broader sports and entertainment industry.

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

Rampant piracy of live sporting events has been a hot topic in Europe for several years. Anti-piracy measures against relatively static targets have their place but preventing access to pirated live streams is much more difficult.

After calling for assistance from the European Commission, many rightsholders are hoping for new legislation to hold intermediaries more accountable. Until then, most sport-linked rightsholders continue to rely on site blocking measures.

After years of fine-tuning, courts all over Europe understand the process well and most appreciate the difficulties faced by rightsholders. Cases are commonly assessed to ensure that injunctive relief is warranted, measures requested are proportionate, and any negative effects on non-infringing third parties will be as low as practically possible.

LaLiga / Telefonica Order: Massive Overblocking

Sysadmin @jaumepons has been crunching data concerning a blocking order previously obtained by LaLiga and Telefonica to block 119 streaming sites. It was granted on the basis there would be no negative effects on internet users, but in February it became clear that hundreds, potentially thousands of innocent sites and users, were being blocked at the same time.

Appeals by Cloudflare and cybersecurity group RootedCON were dismissed by the issuing court; @jaumepons’ latest estimates published on Friday suggests those decisions came at a price.

LaLiga insists that its blocking is not indiscriminate and any overblocking is minimal. Unfortunately, even if the 2.7 million estimate was slashed to just 270, blocking two legal domains for every pirate domain isn’t proportionate and the harm inflicted is likely to be significant.

RootedCON Appeals to Constitutional Court

RootedCON previously stated it wouldn’t just stand by if nothing was done to protect internet users. With a complaint filed at Spain’s Constitutional Court, it is now making good on its word.

“At RootedCON, after 15 years promoting freedom, innovation, and critical thinking in the field of cybersecurity, we cannot stand idly by in the face of this outrage,” their statement reads.

“The measures adopted, lacking transparency, proportionality, and adequate safeguards, represent an extremely dangerous precedent for citizens’ digital rights and the Spanish technological ecosystem. We urge La Liga, the operators involved, and the judiciary to reflect on the serious impact of these types of decisions, which are more similar to the practices of authoritarian regimes of the last century than those of a modern, forward-looking democracy.”

Despite the serious nature of the ongoing controversy, until now it has generally lacked a political dimension.

The Spanish government’s only comment thus far (“We respect judicial decisions”) meets the standard every democratically elected government should strive for. The fly in the ointment is that the injunction was granted on the basis it would do no harm to third parties. As RootedCON suggests, momentum is building regardless.

“[I]n our appeal to the Constitutional Court, we request precautionary measures to curb the constant harassment suffered by both companies and users in our country, and we demand a public and technical debate in the Congress of Deputies on the limits of online control, following the initiative recently proposed by Representative Néstor Rego,” the statement concludes.

Politics Enters the Equation

Néstor Rego is a politician and a member of the Congress of Deputies of Spain. He’s the leader of the Galician Nationalist Bloc and in a statement posted to the party’s website, he calls on the government to “put a stop to the abusive and uncontrolled practices.”

“The State Government must take action on the matter given the repeated blocking of thousands of web pages because, if it does not do so, it implies an abandonment of its functions, leaving them in private hands that act for their own benefit and without control,” Rego says .

“[I]t is incomprehensible that private companies can block websites. The judicial authorization is absurd at this point, but it is not even respected, because that authorization establishes that no harm can be caused to third parties, and yes it is happening. The indiscriminate blocking by LaLiga and Movistar implies a violation of the rights of users and that is why the Government must act.”

LaLiga Responds to Complaints

During the last couple of weeks, momentum has noticeably increased among those who oppose blocking for the collateral damage it causes. Among them is José Luis Porquicho Prada, a journalist working at local news outlet Cádiz Directo.

On May 18, Prada published an article titled LaLiga blocks Cádiz Directo without evidence in its uncontrolled anti-piracy crusade , which revealed that LaLiga had started blocking cadizdirecto.com for no apparent reason. Prada reported that LaLiga was initially unresponsive so he was unable to explain that a mistake had been made.

“[C]ompletely innocent media outlets are being held accountable, without due process, without the right to defense, and without a shred of evidence. Fundamental rights enshrined in Article 24 of the Spanish Constitution, which guarantees effective judicial protection and the right to defense, are being violated,” Prada wrote as part of a polite but withering diatribe on recent events.

Response Perceived as Threatening – Then Bewildering

Late last week Prada revealed that he’d received a response via burofax, a type of secure postal service. He claims that the correspondence was presented in a “markedly threatening tone and lacking any willingness to resolve the conflict.”

Prada says it was signed by none other than LaLiga president Javier Tebas, who advised that cadizdirecto.com had been blocked because it is “hosted on an IP addresses from which intellectual property rights are repeatedly violated.”

Prada clarified that the site uses a CDN and then revealed what LaLiga expected from him. Translated from Spanish ( original here ), Prada explained as follows:

It transpires that Prada wasn’t the only journalist to receive similar correspondence. Political analysis outlet El Orden Mundial was also provided with legal advice.

Posting on X, El Orden Mundial director Fernando Arancón spoke of “the barbarity that is being carried out by @LaLiga with the support of the judiciary,” before suddenly adopting a “something’s coming” tone.

“[LaLiga] have lost their way and are going to eat a Streisand textbook,” Arancón predicted.

Update: Statement from LaLiga

At LALIGA, as always, we respect and comply with the legal system. And, as it could not be otherwise, we respect the decision to file an appeal for constitutional protection before the Constitutional Court. An appeal that was already announced several weeks ago and still needs to pass the admissibility phase.

It is worth recalling that, already last March, the Commercial Court No. 6 of Barcelona fully dismissed the requests for annulment filed by Cloudflare and RootedCON, among others, against the final ruling issued on 18 December 2024, finding no violation of any fundamental rights. That decision reaffirmed that the legal action taken was in accordance with the law and is supported by the current legislation on intellectual property and information society services.

Furthermore, the court order validated the procedural legality of the case, explicitly declaring that there was no “lack of guarantees” and stating that “none of the arguments put forward by the various petitioners demonstrate any actual harm, nor is any such harm identified, quantified, or supported by any proposed evidence intended to directly or indirectly establish damage as a constituent element of the claim for annulment.”

The judicial ruling is fully reasoned and lawful, and also makes it clear that the petitioners lacked standing to invoke the rights they claimed to hold.

LALIGA remains steadfast in its commitment to combating audiovisual fraud in order to protect the audiovisual rights of the competition, its sustainability and that of the football clubs, as well as the broader sports and entertainment industry.

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

The US Copyright Claims Board launched in 2022 . Through this Copyright Office-hosted venue, rightsholders can claim damages outside the federal court system.

The board , instituted through the CASE Act, aims to make it cheaper for creators to resolve disputes. There’s no attorney required and the filing fee is limited to $100 per claim. The potential damages are capped at $30,000 and those who prefer traditional lawsuits can choose to opt-out.

Many rightsholders and related groups backed the creation of a small claims board, noting that this would help resolve copyright disputes without having to file expensive federal lawsuits. Opponents, however, feared that it could be abused by trolls and other frivolous claimants.

Now that nearly three years have passed, the Copyright Office is working on a formal review of the board’s accomplishments. In a request for comments, it asked members of the public to chime in on CCB’s effectiveness and future.

Watchdog Groups Flag CCB Problems

In response to this request, a coalition of groups including Re:Create , the American Library Association , the Association of Research Libraries , R Street , and Engine , filed a critical response. The same groups also objected to the CASE Act and warned about potential abuse by trolls.

While there hasn’t been any sign of systematic abuse of the board, the group flagged various other shortcomings. In a detailed submission, they note that the CCB costs taxpayers millions, while relatively few cases reach a final decision.

According to the groups’ analysis, the CCB has spent approximately $5.4 million in its first years of operation, while only about $75,000 has been awarded to claiming copyright holders through its decisions.

With well over 1,200 complaints, there has been no shortage of claims. However, most of these end up being dismissed and thus far the board has only reached final determinations in 35 cases, awarding little over $2,000 in damages on average.

“American taxpayers have spent around $5,500 per case to reject hundreds of frivolous claims, adjudicate the remaining 3.5%, and issue opinions awarding damages that on average amount to less than half the cost of processing the claim,” the submission states.

High Dismissal Rate

Aside from the money, the high dismissal rate also stands out. The board’s own statistics show that, of the 964 cases that were dismissed, 470 were deemed to be noncompliant. That includes many cases where filers failed to amend their claims upon the CCB’s request.

Another 187 claims were dismissed because no valid proof of service was filed. In 114 instances the respondent chose to opt out, while 99 claims were settled without the board’s involvement.

The groups describe the CCB as “mostly churning through non-compliant claims,” and suggest the $40 initial filing fee is too low to screen out potentially frivolous claims.

“The $40 filing fee is not high enough to deter frivolous claims. Hundreds of non-compliant claims are filed each year by claimants who disappear after a CCB Staff Attorney spends substantial time evaluating the claim and preparing a detailed Order to Amend,” the submission reads.

Concerning Number of Defaults

The groups also expressed alarm over the high proportion of default judgments. Their filing indicates that 60% of the CCB’s final determinations were default judgments, where the respondent did not participate.

This rate is dramatically higher than the typical 7% default rate for copyright cases in federal court. This could signal that the public is not familiar with the opt-out procedure yet and that they don’t understand the consequences.

In one of these cases, respondent Angel Jameson shared her “disbelief that the Board is a government tribunal” after missing the opt-out deadline. Despite her objections, the CCB awarded the claimant $4,500 in damages, rejecting a request to vacate the default judgment.

“The Jameson case suggests that it is possible for respondents to fail to opt out due to mistrust and misunderstanding of the CCB process,” the groups write.

Repeal?

Given these significant operational concerns, the coalition argues strongly against expanding the CCB’s jurisdiction or powers at this time. This would include the suggestion to enable the board to grant subpoenas.

“There is no reason to consider adding to the CCB’s docket or to its powers until it can be established that the CCB is capable of accomplishing its initial mandate,” they note.

“At present, the CCB appears to be drowning in frivolous claims, handing out a handful of default judgments to facially valid claims with only one party present, and slowly grinding away at a handful of disputed claims.”

If these concerns remain, or get worse, it may be best that Congress abolish the small claims board in its entirety, the coalition concludes.

“If these trends continue, Congress should consider repealing the CASE Act.”

—

A copy of the submission submitted by Re:Create, the Association of Research Libraries, Engine, R Street Institute, and the American Library Association is available here (pdf) . Other submissions, including ones who view the CCB as more favorable, can be found here .

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

The US Copyright Claims Board launched in 2022 . Through this Copyright Office-hosted venue, rightsholders can claim damages outside the federal court system.

The board , instituted through the CASE Act, aims to make it cheaper for creators to resolve disputes. There’s no attorney required and the filing fee is limited to $100 per claim. The potential damages are capped at $30,000 and those who prefer traditional lawsuits can choose to opt-out.

Many rightsholders and related groups backed the creation of a small claims board, noting that this would help resolve copyright disputes without having to file expensive federal lawsuits. Opponents, however, feared that it could be abused by trolls and other frivolous claimants.

Now that nearly three years have passed, the Copyright Office is working on a formal review of the board’s accomplishments. In a request for comments, it asked members of the public to chime in on CCB’s effectiveness and future.

Watchdog Groups Flag CCB Problems

In response to this request, a coalition of groups including Re:Create , the American Library Association , the Association of Research Libraries , R Street , and Engine , filed a critical response. The same groups also objected to the CASE Act and warned about potential abuse by trolls.

While there hasn’t been any sign of systematic abuse of the board, the group flagged various other shortcomings. In a detailed submission, they note that the CCB costs taxpayers millions, while relatively few cases reach a final decision.

According to the groups’ analysis, the CCB has spent approximately $5.4 million in its first years of operation, while only about $75,000 has been awarded to claiming copyright holders through its decisions.

With well over 1,200 complaints, there has been no shortage of claims. However, most of these end up being dismissed and thus far the board has only reached final determinations in 35 cases, awarding little over $2,000 in damages on average.

“American taxpayers have spent around $5,500 per case to reject hundreds of frivolous claims, adjudicate the remaining 3.5%, and issue opinions awarding damages that on average amount to less than half the cost of processing the claim,” the submission states.

High Dismissal Rate

Aside from the money, the high dismissal rate also stands out. The board’s own statistics show that, of the 964 cases that were dismissed, 470 were deemed to be noncompliant. That includes many cases where filers failed to amend their claims upon the CCB’s request.

Another 187 claims were dismissed because no valid proof of service was filed. In 114 instances the respondent chose to opt out, while 99 claims were settled without the board’s involvement.

The groups describe the CCB as “mostly churning through non-compliant claims,” and suggest the $40 initial filing fee is too low to screen out potentially frivolous claims.

“The $40 filing fee is not high enough to deter frivolous claims. Hundreds of non-compliant claims are filed each year by claimants who disappear after a CCB Staff Attorney spends substantial time evaluating the claim and preparing a detailed Order to Amend,” the submission reads.

Concerning Number of Defaults

The groups also expressed alarm over the high proportion of default judgments. Their filing indicates that 60% of the CCB’s final determinations were default judgments, where the respondent did not participate.

This rate is dramatically higher than the typical 7% default rate for copyright cases in federal court. This could signal that the public is not familiar with the opt-out procedure yet and that they don’t understand the consequences.

In one of these cases, respondent Angel Jameson shared her “disbelief that the Board is a government tribunal” after missing the opt-out deadline. Despite her objections, the CCB awarded the claimant $4,500 in damages, rejecting a request to vacate the default judgment.

“The Jameson case suggests that it is possible for respondents to fail to opt out due to mistrust and misunderstanding of the CCB process,” the groups write.

Repeal?

Given these significant operational concerns, the coalition argues strongly against expanding the CCB’s jurisdiction or powers at this time. This would include the suggestion to enable the board to grant subpoenas.

“There is no reason to consider adding to the CCB’s docket or to its powers until it can be established that the CCB is capable of accomplishing its initial mandate,” they note.

“At present, the CCB appears to be drowning in frivolous claims, handing out a handful of default judgments to facially valid claims with only one party present, and slowly grinding away at a handful of disputed claims.”

If these concerns remain, or get worse, it may be best that Congress abolish the small claims board in its entirety, the coalition concludes.

“If these trends continue, Congress should consider repealing the CASE Act.”

—

A copy of the submission submitted by Re:Create, the Association of Research Libraries, Engine, R Street Institute, and the American Library Association is available here (pdf) . Other submissions, including ones who view the CCB as more favorable, can be found here .

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

The US Copyright Claims Board launched in 2022 . Through this Copyright Office-hosted venue, rightsholders can claim damages outside the federal court system.

The board , instituted through the CASE Act, aims to make it cheaper for creators to resolve disputes. There’s no attorney required and the filing fee is limited to $100 per claim. The potential damages are capped at $30,000 and those who prefer traditional lawsuits can choose to opt-out.

Many rightsholders and related groups backed the creation of a small claims board, noting that this would help resolve copyright disputes without having to file expensive federal lawsuits. Opponents, however, feared that it could be abused by trolls and other frivolous claimants.

Now that nearly three years have passed, the Copyright Office is working on a formal review of the board’s accomplishments. In a request for comments, it asked members of the public to chime in on CCB’s effectiveness and future.

Watchdog Groups Flag CCB Problems

In response to this request, a coalition of groups including Re:Create , the American Library Association , the Association of Research Libraries , R Street , and Engine , filed a critical response. The same groups also objected to the CASE Act and warned about potential abuse by trolls.

While there hasn’t been any sign of systematic abuse of the board, the group flagged various other shortcomings. In a detailed submission, they note that the CCB costs taxpayers millions, while relatively few cases reach a final decision.

According to the groups’ analysis, the CCB has spent approximately $5.4 million in its first years of operation, while only about $75,000 has been awarded to claiming copyright holders through its decisions.

With well over 1,200 complaints, there has been no shortage of claims. However, most of these end up being dismissed and thus far the board has only reached final determinations in 35 cases, awarding little over $2,000 in damages on average.

“American taxpayers have spent around $5,500 per case to reject hundreds of frivolous claims, adjudicate the remaining 3.5%, and issue opinions awarding damages that on average amount to less than half the cost of processing the claim,” the submission states.

High Dismissal Rate

Aside from the money, the high dismissal rate also stands out. The board’s own statistics show that, of the 964 cases that were dismissed, 470 were deemed to be noncompliant. That includes many cases where filers failed to amend their claims upon the CCB’s request.

Another 187 claims were dismissed because no valid proof of service was filed. In 114 instances the respondent chose to opt out, while 99 claims were settled without the board’s involvement.

The groups describe the CCB as “mostly churning through non-compliant claims,” and suggest the $40 initial filing fee is too low to screen out potentially frivolous claims.

“The $40 filing fee is not high enough to deter frivolous claims. Hundreds of non-compliant claims are filed each year by claimants who disappear after a CCB Staff Attorney spends substantial time evaluating the claim and preparing a detailed Order to Amend,” the submission reads.

Concerning Number of Defaults

The groups also expressed alarm over the high proportion of default judgments. Their filing indicates that 60% of the CCB’s final determinations were default judgments, where the respondent did not participate.

This rate is dramatically higher than the typical 7% default rate for copyright cases in federal court. This could signal that the public is not familiar with the opt-out procedure yet and that they don’t understand the consequences.

In one of these cases, respondent Angel Jameson shared her “disbelief that the Board is a government tribunal” after missing the opt-out deadline. Despite her objections, the CCB awarded the claimant $4,500 in damages, rejecting a request to vacate the default judgment.

“The Jameson case suggests that it is possible for respondents to fail to opt out due to mistrust and misunderstanding of the CCB process,” the groups write.

Repeal?

Given these significant operational concerns, the coalition argues strongly against expanding the CCB’s jurisdiction or powers at this time. This would include the suggestion to enable the board to grant subpoenas.

“There is no reason to consider adding to the CCB’s docket or to its powers until it can be established that the CCB is capable of accomplishing its initial mandate,” they note.

“At present, the CCB appears to be drowning in frivolous claims, handing out a handful of default judgments to facially valid claims with only one party present, and slowly grinding away at a handful of disputed claims.”

If these concerns remain, or get worse, it may be best that Congress abolish the small claims board in its entirety, the coalition concludes.

“If these trends continue, Congress should consider repealing the CASE Act.”

—

A copy of the submission submitted by Re:Create, the Association of Research Libraries, Engine, R Street Institute, and the American Library Association is available here (pdf) . Other submissions, including ones who view the CCB as more favorable, can be found here .

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

Strike 3 Holdings is a familiar name in U.S. federal courts. As the most prolific copyright litigant, the adult entertainment company has filed over 15,000 lawsuits in federal courts.

These lawsuits typically target people whose Internet connections were allegedly used to download and share copyright-infringing content via BitTorrent.

Many of these cases result in private settlements and are never heard from again. Occasionally, however, a defendant decides to push back, arguing their innocence before the court. This includes defendant John R., who was sued in a Florida court last year.

‘Thousands of Pirate Downloads’

The case started as a ‘John Doe’ lawsuit, but after an IP address was linked to a Comcast account, the defendant was named. In an amended complaint, Strike 3 accused the man of sharing 25 of its copyrighted works via BitTorrent.

The complaint alleged that Strike 3’s “VXN Scan” detection software was able to download pieces of these pirated files from the IP address. In addition, the same IP address was linked to thousands of other infringements.

“Plaintiff’s Additional Evidence indicates that IP address 73.107.181.65 was used to download and distribute at least 5,595 files relating to other adult movies and mainstream media using the BitTorrent protocol during the period of infringement,” the complaint reads.

The ‘additional’ pirated files include many Star Wars related titles, a Minion movie, a Grey’s Anatomy episode, as well as albums with Halloween hits. Strike 3 doesn’t hold the rights to any of this media, but it uses the alleged downloads as circumstantial evidence to argue that the right person was identified.

Social Media Likes

Strike 3 notes that these frequent and prolonged downloads suggest that the defendant was unlikely a houseguest or passer-by. Instead, the company points out that defendant’s public social media activity “indicates strong matches” between his interests and the observed downloads.

“Defendant’s publicly available social media indicates that Defendant is a fan of Star Wars,” Strike 3 writes, adding that he is also a ‘fan’ of Minions, Grey’s Anatomy, and Halloween.

Based on these findings, Strike 3 is convinced that it identified the right defendant. However, John R. disagrees and asked the court to dismiss the case, noting that the allegations are mere speculation.

Defendant Wants Case Dismissed

The defense attorney characterized Strike 3’s evidence as an “imaginary bridge from one thought to another.” While the defendant’s social media likes may be accurate, they represent only 0.45% of the 5,595 downloads that were flagged in total.

The defense notes that this circumstantial evidence is weak, adding that there is no evidence that John R.’s devices were used to download any of the tracked files. Also, there are more people who like Halloween or the Minions.

“Therefore, all of the circumstantial evidence provided merely demonstrates a sheer possibility while there are other equally weak possibilities- like the Defendant’s wife or neighbors may like Minions, Star Wars, and Halloween,” the motion to dismiss reads.

Court: Likes Are Evidence, Case Continues

After reviewing the positions of both sides, District Court Judge Sheri Polster Chappell eventually sided with Strike 3, suggesting that the social media likes have some value at this stage of the case.

“Sure enough, Defendant’s social media shows he is a fan of Star Wars, Minions, Grey’s Anatomy, and Halloween,” the order reads, noting that this is more than mere speculation.

The order heavily cites existing jurisprudence, noting that social media interests can be used as evidence to match a defendant’s identity to BitTorrent activity. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the defendant can’t be innocent, but it’s sufficient for the case to survive a motion to dismiss.

As shown above, this means the case will move forward. The defendant is instructed to file a formal answer to the complaint by the end of the month. After that, the discovery phase will start, or alternatively, potential settlement discussions.

—

A copy of Judge Sheri Polster Chappell’s order and opinion is available here (pdf)

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

Strike 3 Holdings is a familiar name in U.S. federal courts. As the most prolific copyright litigant, the adult entertainment company has filed over 15,000 lawsuits in federal courts.

These lawsuits typically target people whose Internet connections were allegedly used to download and share copyright-infringing content via BitTorrent.

Many of these cases result in private settlements and are never heard from again. Occasionally, however, a defendant decides to push back, arguing their innocence before the court. This includes defendant John R., who was sued in a Florida court last year.

‘Thousands of Pirate Downloads’

The case started as a ‘John Doe’ lawsuit, but after an IP address was linked to a Comcast account, the defendant was named. In an amended complaint, Strike 3 accused the man of sharing 25 of its copyrighted works via BitTorrent.

The complaint alleged that Strike 3’s “VXN Scan” detection software was able to download pieces of these pirated files from the IP address. In addition, the same IP address was linked to thousands of other infringements.

“Plaintiff’s Additional Evidence indicates that IP address 73.107.181.65 was used to download and distribute at least 5,595 files relating to other adult movies and mainstream media using the BitTorrent protocol during the period of infringement,” the complaint reads.

The ‘additional’ pirated files include many Star Wars related titles, a Minion movie, a Grey’s Anatomy episode, as well as albums with Halloween hits. Strike 3 doesn’t hold the rights to any of this media, but it uses the alleged downloads as circumstantial evidence to argue that the right person was identified.

Social Media Likes

Strike 3 notes that these frequent and prolonged downloads suggest that the defendant was unlikely a houseguest or passer-by. Instead, the company points out that defendant’s public social media activity “indicates strong matches” between his interests and the observed downloads.

“Defendant’s publicly available social media indicates that Defendant is a fan of Star Wars,” Strike 3 writes, adding that he is also a ‘fan’ of Minions, Grey’s Anatomy, and Halloween.

Based on these findings, Strike 3 is convinced that it identified the right defendant. However, John R. disagrees and asked the court to dismiss the case, noting that the allegations are mere speculation.

Defendant Wants Case Dismissed

The defense attorney characterized Strike 3’s evidence as an “imaginary bridge from one thought to another.” While the defendant’s social media likes may be accurate, they represent only 0.45% of the 5,595 downloads that were flagged in total.

The defense notes that this circumstantial evidence is weak, adding that there is no evidence that John R.’s devices were used to download any of the tracked files. Also, there are more people who like Halloween or the Minions.

“Therefore, all of the circumstantial evidence provided merely demonstrates a sheer possibility while there are other equally weak possibilities- like the Defendant’s wife or neighbors may like Minions, Star Wars, and Halloween,” the motion to dismiss reads.

Court: Likes Are Evidence, Case Continues

After reviewing the positions of both sides, District Court Judge Sheri Polster Chappell eventually sided with Strike 3, suggesting that the social media likes have some value at this stage of the case.

“Sure enough, Defendant’s social media shows he is a fan of Star Wars, Minions, Grey’s Anatomy, and Halloween,” the order reads, noting that this is more than mere speculation.

The order heavily cites existing jurisprudence, noting that social media interests can be used as evidence to match a defendant’s identity to BitTorrent activity. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the defendant can’t be innocent, but it’s sufficient for the case to survive a motion to dismiss.

As shown above, this means the case will move forward. The defendant is instructed to file a formal answer to the complaint by the end of the month. After that, the discovery phase will start, or alternatively, potential settlement discussions.

—

A copy of Judge Sheri Polster Chappell’s order and opinion is available here (pdf)

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

Strike 3 Holdings is a familiar name in U.S. federal courts. As the most prolific copyright litigant, the adult entertainment company has filed over 15,000 lawsuits in federal courts.

These lawsuits typically target people whose Internet connections were allegedly used to download and share copyright-infringing content via BitTorrent.

Many of these cases result in private settlements and are never heard from again. Occasionally, however, a defendant decides to push back, arguing their innocence before the court. This includes defendant John R., who was sued in a Florida court last year.

‘Thousands of Pirate Downloads’

The case started as a ‘John Doe’ lawsuit, but after an IP address was linked to a Comcast account, the defendant was named. In an amended complaint, Strike 3 accused the man of sharing 25 of its copyrighted works via BitTorrent.

The complaint alleged that Strike 3’s “VXN Scan” detection software was able to download pieces of these pirated files from the IP address. In addition, the same IP address was linked to thousands of other infringements.

“Plaintiff’s Additional Evidence indicates that IP address 73.107.181.65 was used to download and distribute at least 5,595 files relating to other adult movies and mainstream media using the BitTorrent protocol during the period of infringement,” the complaint reads.

The ‘additional’ pirated files include many Star Wars related titles, a Minion movie, a Grey’s Anatomy episode, as well as albums with Halloween hits. Strike 3 doesn’t hold the rights to any of this media, but it uses the alleged downloads as circumstantial evidence to argue that the right person was identified.

Social Media Likes

Strike 3 notes that these frequent and prolonged downloads suggest that the defendant was unlikely a houseguest or passer-by. Instead, the company points out that defendant’s public social media activity “indicates strong matches” between his interests and the observed downloads.

“Defendant’s publicly available social media indicates that Defendant is a fan of Star Wars,” Strike 3 writes, adding that he is also a ‘fan’ of Minions, Grey’s Anatomy, and Halloween.

Based on these findings, Strike 3 is convinced that it identified the right defendant. However, John R. disagrees and asked the court to dismiss the case, noting that the allegations are mere speculation.

Defendant Wants Case Dismissed

The defense attorney characterized Strike 3’s evidence as an “imaginary bridge from one thought to another.” While the defendant’s social media likes may be accurate, they represent only 0.45% of the 5,595 downloads that were flagged in total.

The defense notes that this circumstantial evidence is weak, adding that there is no evidence that John R.’s devices were used to download any of the tracked files. Also, there are more people who like Halloween or the Minions.

“Therefore, all of the circumstantial evidence provided merely demonstrates a sheer possibility while there are other equally weak possibilities- like the Defendant’s wife or neighbors may like Minions, Star Wars, and Halloween,” the motion to dismiss reads.

Court: Likes Are Evidence, Case Continues

After reviewing the positions of both sides, District Court Judge Sheri Polster Chappell eventually sided with Strike 3, suggesting that the social media likes have some value at this stage of the case.

“Sure enough, Defendant’s social media shows he is a fan of Star Wars, Minions, Grey’s Anatomy, and Halloween,” the order reads, noting that this is more than mere speculation.

The order heavily cites existing jurisprudence, noting that social media interests can be used as evidence to match a defendant’s identity to BitTorrent activity. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the defendant can’t be innocent, but it’s sufficient for the case to survive a motion to dismiss.

As shown above, this means the case will move forward. The defendant is instructed to file a formal answer to the complaint by the end of the month. After that, the discovery phase will start, or alternatively, potential settlement discussions.

—

A copy of Judge Sheri Polster Chappell’s order and opinion is available here (pdf)

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