With an estimated 240 million visits during the first three months of the year, Nhentai is one of the most trafficked websites online today.

The site serves adult-oriented anime and manga, also known as hentai. These spicy Japanese comics are popular worldwide but not everyone is happy with Nhentai or its massive audience. Some rightsholders consider the site a deviant pirate operation.

California-based rightsholder PCR Distributing, which operates under brands including J18 and JAST USA, initiated action against nHentai last summer, describing the site as a significant threat to its business.

PCR initially requested a DMCA subpoena asking Cloudflare to unmask the people behind the site, claiming that they failed to process takedown notices. These subpoena requests are typically straightforward, but not in this case, as Nhentai decided to intervene in court.

Nhentai Sued by Publisher for Widespread Piracy

Facing opposition, PCR swiftly dropped the subpoena request and filed a full complaint against the site’s operators in a California federal court instead. According to the publisher, Nhentai shares copyrighted material without obtaining permission.

“[Nhentai] hosts a vast collection of hentai works, including commercially produced content, much of which, based on information and belief, is shared without proper authorization from the owners,” the complaint alleged.

Nhentai’s initial opposition, in which it countered that it had been granted permission to share content, already indicated that the site had no plans to leave these allegations uncontested. And indeed, Nhentai responded to the lawsuit and actively fought back.

Nhentai Seeks Dismissal and Anonymity

In January, Nhentai asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. The anonymous operators said there were several grounds for the court to end the lawsuit prematurely, including insufficient copyright registrations.

In addition, Nhentai requested a protective order to proceed in the case anonymously, at least in the early stages. Keeping personal details out of public filings, but available to the opposing attorneys, would shield them from potential retribution.

“The specific harm and prejudice to Nhentai.net is that the Plaintiff in this matter has shown particular animus toward Nhentai.net and even its counsel and taken public action accordingly,” Nhentai’s attorney wrote.

“In truth, this case has nothing to do with copyright infringement, but rather appears to be a money grab and an attempt to take over the entire domain www.nhentai.net based on knowingly meritless claims,” the defense added.

Nhentai Operators Ordered to Unveil Themselves

Nhentai’s operators asked the court to keep their personal details private, at least until the motion to dismiss had been decided. In February, however, U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Richlin decided otherwise.

The defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence that they would be harmed by being named, the Magistrate Judge concluded. The order further noted that there’s a public interest in knowing who the operators of this popular site are.

“The focus of this case is a publicly available website alleged to receive around 79.38 million monthly visitors from the United States and around the world. Thus, the Court easily concludes that the public has a strong interest in knowing the identity of the corporate entity that operates this website and is appearing in federal court,” Judge Richlin wrote.

Nhentai objected to the ruling, but after the matter was referred to California District Court Judge Cynthia Valenzuela, the Judge arrived at the same conclusion.

“Overall, Defendant has made no showing that it is entitled to keep its identity hidden from the parties to the action, this Court, or the public, let alone a showing that the Magistrate Judge Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law,” Judge Valenzuela wrote in her decision last week.

Dismissal Denied, Case Continues

In addition to denying the protective order, Judge Valenzuela also denied Nhentai’s motion to dismiss the copyright infringement claims.

Judge Valenzuela notes that PCR sufficiently pled that it owns valid copyrights that are being infringed by the defendant. While there may be potential shortcomings in the pleading, they don’t warrant a dismissal at this stage.

This means that the case will now move forward with all copyright infringement claims intact.

Jason Tucker, president of anti-piracy outfit Battleship Stance , which helps PCR and other companies with their legal strategies, is pleased with the outcome. He says it confirms that the defendants in these cases can’t remain anonymous.

“These rulings send a clear message: you don’t get to profit from other people’s work and stay hidden in the process. I’m glad the Court recognized that this case is about holding people accountable when they build businesses off someone else’s content.”

“That’s one of the few ways we can protect creative work and the people who make it. We’re still in the early stages, but it’s a meaningful step forward,” Tucker adds.

Both the motion to dismiss and the motion for a protective order were decided on the April 8th. The court ordered Nhentai to file a status report, disclosing the names of all defendants within three business days. A week has now passed, and as of today, no defendants appear to have been publicly named in court filings.

—

A copy of Judge Cynthia Valenzuela’s order denying the motion to dismiss and the motion to strike is available here (pdf) . The order denying the motion for a protective order can be found here (pdf)

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

With an estimated 240 million visits during the first three months of the year, Nhentai is one of the most trafficked websites online today.

The site serves adult-oriented anime and manga, also known as hentai. These spicy Japanese comics are popular worldwide but not everyone is happy with Nhentai or its massive audience. Some rightsholders consider the site a deviant pirate operation.

California-based rightsholder PCR Distributing, which operates under brands including J18 and JAST USA, initiated action against nHentai last summer, describing the site as a significant threat to its business.

PCR initially requested a DMCA subpoena asking Cloudflare to unmask the people behind the site, claiming that they failed to process takedown notices. These subpoena requests are typically straightforward, but not in this case, as Nhentai decided to intervene in court.

Nhentai Sued by Publisher for Widespread Piracy

Facing opposition, PCR swiftly dropped the subpoena request and filed a full complaint against the site’s operators in a California federal court instead. According to the publisher, Nhentai shares copyrighted material without obtaining permission.

“[Nhentai] hosts a vast collection of hentai works, including commercially produced content, much of which, based on information and belief, is shared without proper authorization from the owners,” the complaint alleged.

Nhentai’s initial opposition, in which it countered that it had been granted permission to share content, already indicated that the site had no plans to leave these allegations uncontested. And indeed, Nhentai responded to the lawsuit and actively fought back.

Nhentai Seeks Dismissal and Anonymity

In January, Nhentai asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. The anonymous operators said there were several grounds for the court to end the lawsuit prematurely, including insufficient copyright registrations.

In addition, Nhentai requested a protective order to proceed in the case anonymously, at least in the early stages. Keeping personal details out of public filings, but available to the opposing attorneys, would shield them from potential retribution.

“The specific harm and prejudice to Nhentai.net is that the Plaintiff in this matter has shown particular animus toward Nhentai.net and even its counsel and taken public action accordingly,” Nhentai’s attorney wrote.

“In truth, this case has nothing to do with copyright infringement, but rather appears to be a money grab and an attempt to take over the entire domain www.nhentai.net based on knowingly meritless claims,” the defense added.

Nhentai Operators Ordered to Unveil Themselves

Nhentai’s operators asked the court to keep their personal details private, at least until the motion to dismiss had been decided. In February, however, U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Richlin decided otherwise.

The defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence that they would be harmed by being named, the Magistrate Judge concluded. The order further noted that there’s a public interest in knowing who the operators of this popular site are.

“The focus of this case is a publicly available website alleged to receive around 79.38 million monthly visitors from the United States and around the world. Thus, the Court easily concludes that the public has a strong interest in knowing the identity of the corporate entity that operates this website and is appearing in federal court,” Judge Richlin wrote.

Nhentai objected to the ruling, but after the matter was referred to California District Court Judge Cynthia Valenzuela, the Judge arrived at the same conclusion.

“Overall, Defendant has made no showing that it is entitled to keep its identity hidden from the parties to the action, this Court, or the public, let alone a showing that the Magistrate Judge Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law,” Judge Valenzuela wrote in her decision last week.

Dismissal Denied, Case Continues

In addition to denying the protective order, Judge Valenzuela also denied Nhentai’s motion to dismiss the copyright infringement claims.

Judge Valenzuela notes that PCR sufficiently pled that it owns valid copyrights that are being infringed by the defendant. While there may be potential shortcomings in the pleading, they don’t warrant a dismissal at this stage.

This means that the case will now move forward with all copyright infringement claims intact.

Jason Tucker, president of anti-piracy outfit Battleship Stance , which helps PCR and other companies with their legal strategies, is pleased with the outcome. He says it confirms that the defendants in these cases can’t remain anonymous.

“These rulings send a clear message: you don’t get to profit from other people’s work and stay hidden in the process. I’m glad the Court recognized that this case is about holding people accountable when they build businesses off someone else’s content.”

“That’s one of the few ways we can protect creative work and the people who make it. We’re still in the early stages, but it’s a meaningful step forward,” Tucker adds.

Both the motion to dismiss and the motion for a protective order were decided on the April 8th. The court ordered Nhentai to file a status report, disclosing the names of all defendants within three business days. A week has now passed, and as of today, no defendants appear to have been publicly named in court filings.

—

A copy of Judge Cynthia Valenzuela’s order denying the motion to dismiss and the motion to strike is available here (pdf) . The order denying the motion for a protective order can be found here (pdf)

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

With an estimated 240 million visits during the first three months of the year, Nhentai is one of the most trafficked websites online today.

The site serves adult-oriented anime and manga, also known as hentai. These spicy Japanese comics are popular worldwide but not everyone is happy with Nhentai or its massive audience. Some rightsholders consider the site a deviant pirate operation.

California-based rightsholder PCR Distributing, which operates under brands including J18 and JAST USA, initiated action against nHentai last summer, describing the site as a significant threat to its business.

PCR initially requested a DMCA subpoena asking Cloudflare to unmask the people behind the site, claiming that they failed to process takedown notices. These subpoena requests are typically straightforward, but not in this case, as Nhentai decided to intervene in court.

Nhentai Sued by Publisher for Widespread Piracy

Facing opposition, PCR swiftly dropped the subpoena request and filed a full complaint against the site’s operators in a California federal court instead. According to the publisher, Nhentai shares copyrighted material without obtaining permission.

“[Nhentai] hosts a vast collection of hentai works, including commercially produced content, much of which, based on information and belief, is shared without proper authorization from the owners,” the complaint alleged.

Nhentai’s initial opposition, in which it countered that it had been granted permission to share content, already indicated that the site had no plans to leave these allegations uncontested. And indeed, Nhentai responded to the lawsuit and actively fought back.

Nhentai Seeks Dismissal and Anonymity

In January, Nhentai asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. The anonymous operators said there were several grounds for the court to end the lawsuit prematurely, including insufficient copyright registrations.

In addition, Nhentai requested a protective order to proceed in the case anonymously, at least in the early stages. Keeping personal details out of public filings, but available to the opposing attorneys, would shield them from potential retribution.

“The specific harm and prejudice to Nhentai.net is that the Plaintiff in this matter has shown particular animus toward Nhentai.net and even its counsel and taken public action accordingly,” Nhentai’s attorney wrote.

“In truth, this case has nothing to do with copyright infringement, but rather appears to be a money grab and an attempt to take over the entire domain www.nhentai.net based on knowingly meritless claims,” the defense added.

Nhentai Operators Ordered to Unveil Themselves

Nhentai’s operators asked the court to keep their personal details private, at least until the motion to dismiss had been decided. In February, however, U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Richlin decided otherwise.

The defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence that they would be harmed by being named, the Magistrate Judge concluded. The order further noted that there’s a public interest in knowing who the operators of this popular site are.

“The focus of this case is a publicly available website alleged to receive around 79.38 million monthly visitors from the United States and around the world. Thus, the Court easily concludes that the public has a strong interest in knowing the identity of the corporate entity that operates this website and is appearing in federal court,” Judge Richlin wrote.

Nhentai objected to the ruling, but after the matter was referred to California District Court Judge Cynthia Valenzuela, the Judge arrived at the same conclusion.

“Overall, Defendant has made no showing that it is entitled to keep its identity hidden from the parties to the action, this Court, or the public, let alone a showing that the Magistrate Judge Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law,” Judge Valenzuela wrote in her decision last week.

Dismissal Denied, Case Continues

In addition to denying the protective order, Judge Valenzuela also denied Nhentai’s motion to dismiss the copyright infringement claims.

Judge Valenzuela notes that PCR sufficiently pled that it owns valid copyrights that are being infringed by the defendant. While there may be potential shortcomings in the pleading, they don’t warrant a dismissal at this stage.

This means that the case will now move forward with all copyright infringement claims intact.

Jason Tucker, president of anti-piracy outfit Battleship Stance , which helps PCR and other companies with their legal strategies, is pleased with the outcome. He says it confirms that the defendants in these cases can’t remain anonymous.

“These rulings send a clear message: you don’t get to profit from other people’s work and stay hidden in the process. I’m glad the Court recognized that this case is about holding people accountable when they build businesses off someone else’s content.”

“That’s one of the few ways we can protect creative work and the people who make it. We’re still in the early stages, but it’s a meaningful step forward,” Tucker adds.

Both the motion to dismiss and the motion for a protective order were decided on the April 8th. The court ordered Nhentai to file a status report, disclosing the names of all defendants within three business days. A week has now passed, and as of today, no defendants appear to have been publicly named in court filings.

—

A copy of Judge Cynthia Valenzuela’s order denying the motion to dismiss and the motion to strike is available here (pdf) . The order denying the motion for a protective order can be found here (pdf)

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

As debate heats up in the United States over proposed site-blocking legislation, opinions of what that might mean in practice are already beginning to emerge.

Introduced by Rep. Zoe Lofgren late January , the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA) attempts to distill well over a decade of site blocking experience amassed by U.S. rightsholders overseas, into a package carefully curated for use on home soil.

Site-Blocking Debate Returns to Polarization

Should it become law, FAPDA would allow rightsholders to obtain site blocking orders targeted at verified pirate sites, run by foreign or assumed foreign operators. The proposals as they stand today envision blocking orders that would apply to both ISPs and DNS resolvers, the latter an already controversial trend that has only recently shown momentum in Europe.

As proponents have made clear many times over the past 15 years or so, to remain effective site-blocking must continuously adapt. That necessarily means that the FADPA proposals on the table today are the starting point for U.S. site-blocking. For those advocating in favor of FADPA, especially as a highly predictable framework with guardrails for safety, the inherent need to adapt and expand presents challenges for longer-term assurances.

No Wild Predictions Required, Europe Holds the Answers

Unlike the SOPA debate in 2012, where wild predictions one way or another had no clear historical basis, today there is a deep well of information to draw from, much of it the result of U.S. rightsholders’ implementation of site-blocking in Europe. As such, events there should be considered informative.

Established four years ago , Germany operates an administrative site blocking regime which requires no direct legal oversight. A partnership between rightsholders and local ISPs saw the launch of the “Clearing Body for Copyright on the Internet” (CUII) which is now responsible for handing down blocking instructions against sites that structurally infringe copyright.

Recommendations for blocking are published on the CUII website, along with redacted reports explaining investigators’ findings. The image below shows all recommendations for blocking since the program began.

This level of transparency is already a step up from broadly equivalent schemes seen elsewhere in Europe. However, in common with many of its counterparts elsewhere, the domains subsequently nominated by rightsholders and then blocked by ISPs are on a confidential list to which the public has no access. Or at least, that was the original plan.

Confidential Block List Exposed By ISP

A Netzpolitik report published last week revealed that Germany’s secret site-blocking list had been publicly available for at least 10 months via the URL rpz01do.versatel-west.de. Accidentally made available by ISP 1&1 Versatel, the URL let visitors see every domain blocked by local ISPs, enabling them to see how the list changed over time following numerous updates.

While the CUII website lists 24 platforms for blocking, at last count the exposed list contained well over ten times more domains/subdomains, over 300 in total. For perspective, Germany’s site-blocking program is very modest when compared to schemes in the UK, France, Italy, and Spain, for example, where thousands of sites are blocked with information on domains mostly restricted.

Last year we reported on the work of Damian, a then-17-year-old in Germany who lifted the veil of secrecy on the scale of domain blocking via the site cuiiliste.de .

“CUII is a private organization that blocks websites that it believes violate copyright law – without any court orders. In addition, their approach seems very non-transparent in my opinion,” Damian said.

Damian and others working on the project used various DNS-based techniques to establish which domains were blocked in Germany. However, he informs Netzpolitik that access to the ‘leaked’ master list helped to confirm that all blocked domains were present on the cuiliste.de site, something that can longer be guaranteed.

That’s because, predictably, as soon as 1&1 Versatel discovered its accidental transparency, measures were swiftly taken to ensure the list was hidden away as originally intended.

Site-Blocking = Censorship?

A pro-FADPA article published late last week by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation put forward reasons ‘Why the US Should Block Piracy’. One of a series of articles with a similar theme over the last few years, the piece describes site-blocking as “a no-brainer” and U.S. policy as having “international precedent.”

The crux of the piece dismisses concerns that FADPA could be used as a tool for censorship, and rejects the notion that the “one sided process” through which orders are obtained are “fundamentally flawed.” These are entrenched positions that have closed very little over the last 12+ years and will undoubtedly continue to rage as the months unfold.

“[W]hen policymakers propose reasonable, legally sound tools to stop [piracy], critics respond with hyperbole, misdirection, and scare tactics,” the piece adds, a claim that has been utilized by both sides, if any at all.

No Censorship Where There’s Transparency

Claims of censorship often depend on the context and the FADPA proposals in the U.S. will need to address those claims at some point, whether justified or not. However, while censorship and transparency have some similarities, the latter may deserve more attention.

Proposals in the U.S. suggest a system not dissimilar to those operating in Europe, with and without involvement of the courts. An initial blocking order against a platform will be made available to the public, but since those orders are likely to be flexible (‘dynamic’ in site-blocking parlance), permission will be granted to block additional resources without returning to court.

Following the clear pattern on display in Europe, whatever rightsholders and ISPs agree to block privately, will be blocked, and if there is no transparency requirement, none will be forthcoming.

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

As debate heats up in the United States over proposed site-blocking legislation, opinions of what that might mean in practice are already beginning to emerge.

Introduced by Rep. Zoe Lofgren late January , the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA) attempts to distill well over a decade of site blocking experience amassed by U.S. rightsholders overseas, into a package carefully curated for use on home soil.

Site-Blocking Debate Returns to Polarization

Should it become law, FAPDA would allow rightsholders to obtain site blocking orders targeted at verified pirate sites, run by foreign or assumed foreign operators. The proposals as they stand today envision blocking orders that would apply to both ISPs and DNS resolvers, the latter an already controversial trend that has only recently shown momentum in Europe.

As proponents have made clear many times over the past 15 years or so, to remain effective site-blocking must continuously adapt. That necessarily means that the FADPA proposals on the table today are the starting point for U.S. site-blocking. For those advocating in favor of FADPA, especially as a highly predictable framework with guardrails for safety, the inherent need to adapt and expand presents challenges for longer-term assurances.

No Wild Predictions Required, Europe Holds the Answers

Unlike the SOPA debate in 2012, where wild predictions one way or another had no clear historical basis, today there is a deep well of information to draw from, much of it the result of U.S. rightsholders’ implementation of site-blocking in Europe. As such, events there should be considered informative.

Established four years ago , Germany operates an administrative site blocking regime which requires no direct legal oversight. A partnership between rightsholders and local ISPs saw the launch of the “Clearing Body for Copyright on the Internet” (CUII) which is now responsible for handing down blocking instructions against sites that structurally infringe copyright.

Recommendations for blocking are published on the CUII website, along with redacted reports explaining investigators’ findings. The image below shows all recommendations for blocking since the program began.

This level of transparency is already a step up from broadly equivalent schemes seen elsewhere in Europe. However, in common with many of its counterparts elsewhere, the domains subsequently nominated by rightsholders and then blocked by ISPs are on a confidential list to which the public has no access. Or at least, that was the original plan.

Confidential Block List Exposed By ISP

A Netzpolitik report published last week revealed that Germany’s secret site-blocking list had been publicly available for at least 10 months via the URL rpz01do.versatel-west.de. Accidentally made available by ISP 1&1 Versatel, the URL let visitors see every domain blocked by local ISPs, enabling them to see how the list changed over time following numerous updates.

While the CUII website lists 24 platforms for blocking, at last count the exposed list contained well over ten times more domains/subdomains, over 300 in total. For perspective, Germany’s site-blocking program is very modest when compared to schemes in the UK, France, Italy, and Spain, for example, where thousands of sites are blocked with information on domains mostly restricted.

Last year we reported on the work of Damian, a then-17-year-old in Germany who lifted the veil of secrecy on the scale of domain blocking via the site cuiiliste.de .

“CUII is a private organization that blocks websites that it believes violate copyright law – without any court orders. In addition, their approach seems very non-transparent in my opinion,” Damian said.

Damian and others working on the project used various DNS-based techniques to establish which domains were blocked in Germany. However, he informs Netzpolitik that access to the ‘leaked’ master list helped to confirm that all blocked domains were present on the cuiliste.de site, something that can longer be guaranteed.

That’s because, predictably, as soon as 1&1 Versatel discovered its accidental transparency, measures were swiftly taken to ensure the list was hidden away as originally intended.

Site-Blocking = Censorship?

A pro-FADPA article published late last week by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation put forward reasons ‘Why the US Should Block Piracy’. One of a series of articles with a similar theme over the last few years, the piece describes site-blocking as “a no-brainer” and U.S. policy as having “international precedent.”

The crux of the piece dismisses concerns that FADPA could be used as a tool for censorship, and rejects the notion that the “one sided process” through which orders are obtained are “fundamentally flawed.” These are entrenched positions that have closed very little over the last 12+ years and will undoubtedly continue to rage as the months unfold.

“[W]hen policymakers propose reasonable, legally sound tools to stop [piracy], critics respond with hyperbole, misdirection, and scare tactics,” the piece adds, a claim that has been utilized by both sides, if any at all.

No Censorship Where There’s Transparency

Claims of censorship often depend on the context and the FADPA proposals in the U.S. will need to address those claims at some point, whether justified or not. However, while censorship and transparency have some similarities, the latter may deserve more attention.

Proposals in the U.S. suggest a system not dissimilar to those operating in Europe, with and without involvement of the courts. An initial blocking order against a platform will be made available to the public, but since those orders are likely to be flexible (‘dynamic’ in site-blocking parlance), permission will be granted to block additional resources without returning to court.

Following the clear pattern on display in Europe, whatever rightsholders and ISPs agree to block privately, will be blocked, and if there is no transparency requirement, none will be forthcoming.

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

As debate heats up in the United States over proposed site-blocking legislation, opinions of what that might mean in practice are already beginning to emerge.

Introduced by Rep. Zoe Lofgren late January , the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA) attempts to distill well over a decade of site blocking experience amassed by U.S. rightsholders overseas, into a package carefully curated for use on home soil.

Site-Blocking Debate Returns to Polarization

Should it become law, FAPDA would allow rightsholders to obtain site blocking orders targeted at verified pirate sites, run by foreign or assumed foreign operators. The proposals as they stand today envision blocking orders that would apply to both ISPs and DNS resolvers, the latter an already controversial trend that has only recently shown momentum in Europe.

As proponents have made clear many times over the past 15 years or so, to remain effective site-blocking must continuously adapt. That necessarily means that the FADPA proposals on the table today are the starting point for U.S. site-blocking. For those advocating in favor of FADPA, especially as a highly predictable framework with guardrails for safety, the inherent need to adapt and expand presents challenges for longer-term assurances.

No Wild Predictions Required, Europe Holds the Answers

Unlike the SOPA debate in 2012, where wild predictions one way or another had no clear historical basis, today there is a deep well of information to draw from, much of it the result of U.S. rightsholders’ implementation of site-blocking in Europe. As such, events there should be considered informative.

Established four years ago , Germany operates an administrative site blocking regime which requires no direct legal oversight. A partnership between rightsholders and local ISPs saw the launch of the “Clearing Body for Copyright on the Internet” (CUII) which is now responsible for handing down blocking instructions against sites that structurally infringe copyright.

Recommendations for blocking are published on the CUII website, along with redacted reports explaining investigators’ findings. The image below shows all recommendations for blocking since the program began.

This level of transparency is already a step up from broadly equivalent schemes seen elsewhere in Europe. However, in common with many of its counterparts elsewhere, the domains subsequently nominated by rightsholders and then blocked by ISPs are on a confidential list to which the public has no access. Or at least, that was the original plan.

Confidential Block List Exposed By ISP

A Netzpolitik report published last week revealed that Germany’s secret site-blocking list had been publicly available for at least 10 months via the URL rpz01do.versatel-west.de. Accidentally made available by ISP 1&1 Versatel, the URL let visitors see every domain blocked by local ISPs, enabling them to see how the list changed over time following numerous updates.

While the CUII website lists 24 platforms for blocking, at last count the exposed list contained well over ten times more domains/subdomains, over 300 in total. For perspective, Germany’s site-blocking program is very modest when compared to schemes in the UK, France, Italy, and Spain, for example, where thousands of sites are blocked with information on domains mostly restricted.

Last year we reported on the work of Damian, a then-17-year-old in Germany who lifted the veil of secrecy on the scale of domain blocking via the site cuiiliste.de .

“CUII is a private organization that blocks websites that it believes violate copyright law – without any court orders. In addition, their approach seems very non-transparent in my opinion,” Damian said.

Damian and others working on the project used various DNS-based techniques to establish which domains were blocked in Germany. However, he informs Netzpolitik that access to the ‘leaked’ master list helped to confirm that all blocked domains were present on the cuiliste.de site, something that can longer be guaranteed.

That’s because, predictably, as soon as 1&1 Versatel discovered its accidental transparency, measures were swiftly taken to ensure the list was hidden away as originally intended.

Site-Blocking = Censorship?

A pro-FADPA article published late last week by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation put forward reasons ‘Why the US Should Block Piracy’. One of a series of articles with a similar theme over the last few years, the piece describes site-blocking as “a no-brainer” and U.S. policy as having “international precedent.”

The crux of the piece dismisses concerns that FADPA could be used as a tool for censorship, and rejects the notion that the “one sided process” through which orders are obtained are “fundamentally flawed.” These are entrenched positions that have closed very little over the last 12+ years and will undoubtedly continue to rage as the months unfold.

“[W]hen policymakers propose reasonable, legally sound tools to stop [piracy], critics respond with hyperbole, misdirection, and scare tactics,” the piece adds, a claim that has been utilized by both sides, if any at all.

No Censorship Where There’s Transparency

Claims of censorship often depend on the context and the FADPA proposals in the U.S. will need to address those claims at some point, whether justified or not. However, while censorship and transparency have some similarities, the latter may deserve more attention.

Proposals in the U.S. suggest a system not dissimilar to those operating in Europe, with and without involvement of the courts. An initial blocking order against a platform will be made available to the public, but since those orders are likely to be flexible (‘dynamic’ in site-blocking parlance), permission will be granted to block additional resources without returning to court.

Following the clear pattern on display in Europe, whatever rightsholders and ISPs agree to block privately, will be blocked, and if there is no transparency requirement, none will be forthcoming.

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

Tech companies are racing to build the most powerful Artificial Intelligence (AI) but how these systems are trained is now mired in controversy.

Many major tech firms allegedly used huge amounts of copyrighted material to train their AI, without obtaining permission from rightsholders. This has triggered a series of copyright infringement lawsuits.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, is one of the companies being sued. Well-known book authors, including Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, and Christopher Golden, previously filed a class-action lawsuit against the company.

This lawsuit has a clear piracy angle, as Meta used BitTorrent to download archives of pirated books to use as training material for its Llama models.

Notably, the authors argued that, in addition to downloading pirated books from Anna’s Archive, Z-Library and other sources, Meta uploaded pirated books to third parties in the process.

Last month, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. Meta’s motion relied heavily on a fair use defense. Meanwhile, the authors argued that the downloading of millions of books cannot be classified as fair use, since the source of the books is clearly copyright-infringing.

Law Professors Back Both Sides

Given the high stakes, the motions for summary judgment attracted interest from various third parties. Through amicus brief filings, these groups are asking the court to consider their perspectives. Previously, several law professors backed Meta, for example, arguing that training AI using ‘pirated’ content might be fair use .

Not all law professors agree with this conclusion, however, as highlighted in a new amicus brief from another group of law professors. This “friend of the court” brief, submitted last Friday, clearly backs the authors.

These law professors, who don’t address the BitTorrent-specific allegations, believe that using copyrighted books to train AI is not fair use.

“Meta’s claim that its unauthorized copying of plaintiffs’ works to train its large language models is fair use is a breathtaking request for greater legal privileges than courts have ever granted human authors. It should be rejected,” they write.

Using copyrighted works without permission might be considered ‘fair use’ if the use creates a new and transformative product. However, the law professors don’t believe that’s the case here.

Instead, they see the AI end product as a commercial tool that has a similar purpose to the books it is trained on; namely, to educate people.

“The use of copyrighted works to train generative models is not ‘transformative,’ because using works for that purpose is not relevantly different from using them to educate human authors, which is a principal original purpose of all of plaintiffs’ works,” the professors state.

“That training use is also not ‘transformative’ because its purpose is to enable the creation of works that compete with the copied works in the same markets – a purpose that, when pursued by a for-profit company like Meta, also makes the use undeniably ‘commercial’.”

In their 19-page brief, the professors dispute Meta’s fair use defense by analyzing several relevant factors. They ultimately conclude that these factors weigh “conclusively” against a finding of fair use.

Publishers Highlight Brazen Widespread Piracy

The book authors also receive support from other third parties, including The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers ( STM ), which also submitted an amicus curiae brief last Friday.

The publishers’ brief highlights the shadow libraries that Meta allegedly used to source some of its training materials. These include Z-Library, Library Genesis and Anna’s Archive, which have all been subject to legal problems of their own; such as the criminal prosecution of two alleged Z-Library operators.

“The illegal websites that Meta used to purloin a trove of copyrighted works have been the repeated subject of enforcement,” the publishers’ brief reads.

“Collectively, they have been found by multiple courts to be illegal and against the public interest; investigated by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice, including for potential espionage; had their domains shut down; and had their operators arrested.”

Meta previously argued that its alleged use of copyrighted books as training inputs could be seen as fair use, regardless of the source of the data. However, STM sees this differently. They say that the “use of stolen content matters.”

The brief urges the court to consider these pirate sources, not only regarding the direct copyright infringement claim, but also when determining fair use for the AI training.

“Meta knowingly copied and distributed a shocking amount of infringing material from the world’s most notorious infringing websites to serve its commercial ends. Meta’s brazen acts of infringement, unprecedented in the annals of copyright law, must be considered in the context of fair use and should weigh heavily against it,” the publishers conclude.

The publishers’ position doesn’t come as a surprise, as they are directly impacted by the legal debate over AI training data. However, the fact that law professors can have vastly different opinions on the fair use analysis, shows that this isn’t an easy matter to resolve in court.

And given the stakes at play, these and other AI-related fair-use questions could very well end up at the Supreme Court in a few years.

—

A copy of the Amicus Curiae brief from the Law Professors is available here (pdf) , and the brief from the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers can be found here (pdf)

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

Tech companies are racing to build the most powerful Artificial Intelligence (AI) but how these systems are trained is now mired in controversy.

Many major tech firms allegedly used huge amounts of copyrighted material to train their AI, without obtaining permission from rightsholders. This has triggered a series of copyright infringement lawsuits.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, is one of the companies being sued. Well-known book authors, including Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, and Christopher Golden, previously filed a class-action lawsuit against the company.

This lawsuit has a clear piracy angle, as Meta used BitTorrent to download archives of pirated books to use as training material for its Llama models.

Notably, the authors argued that, in addition to downloading pirated books from Anna’s Archive, Z-Library and other sources, Meta uploaded pirated books to third parties in the process.

Last month, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. Meta’s motion relied heavily on a fair use defense. Meanwhile, the authors argued that the downloading of millions of books cannot be classified as fair use, since the source of the books is clearly copyright-infringing.

Law Professors Back Both Sides

Given the high stakes, the motions for summary judgment attracted interest from various third parties. Through amicus brief filings, these groups are asking the court to consider their perspectives. Previously, several law professors backed Meta, for example, arguing that training AI using ‘pirated’ content might be fair use .

Not all law professors agree with this conclusion, however, as highlighted in a new amicus brief from another group of law professors. This “friend of the court” brief, submitted last Friday, clearly backs the authors.

These law professors, who don’t address the BitTorrent-specific allegations, believe that using copyrighted books to train AI is not fair use.

“Meta’s claim that its unauthorized copying of plaintiffs’ works to train its large language models is fair use is a breathtaking request for greater legal privileges than courts have ever granted human authors. It should be rejected,” they write.

Using copyrighted works without permission might be considered ‘fair use’ if the use creates a new and transformative product. However, the law professors don’t believe that’s the case here.

Instead, they see the AI end product as a commercial tool that has a similar purpose to the books it is trained on; namely, to educate people.

“The use of copyrighted works to train generative models is not ‘transformative,’ because using works for that purpose is not relevantly different from using them to educate human authors, which is a principal original purpose of all of plaintiffs’ works,” the professors state.

“That training use is also not ‘transformative’ because its purpose is to enable the creation of works that compete with the copied works in the same markets – a purpose that, when pursued by a for-profit company like Meta, also makes the use undeniably ‘commercial’.”

In their 19-page brief, the professors dispute Meta’s fair use defense by analyzing several relevant factors. They ultimately conclude that these factors weigh “conclusively” against a finding of fair use.

Publishers Highlight Brazen Widespread Piracy

The book authors also receive support from other third parties, including The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers ( STM ), which also submitted an amicus curiae brief last Friday.

The publishers’ brief highlights the shadow libraries that Meta allegedly used to source some of its training materials. These include Z-Library, Library Genesis and Anna’s Archive, which have all been subject to legal problems of their own; such as the criminal prosecution of two alleged Z-Library operators.

“The illegal websites that Meta used to purloin a trove of copyrighted works have been the repeated subject of enforcement,” the publishers’ brief reads.

“Collectively, they have been found by multiple courts to be illegal and against the public interest; investigated by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice, including for potential espionage; had their domains shut down; and had their operators arrested.”

Meta previously argued that its alleged use of copyrighted books as training inputs could be seen as fair use, regardless of the source of the data. However, STM sees this differently. They say that the “use of stolen content matters.”

The brief urges the court to consider these pirate sources, not only regarding the direct copyright infringement claim, but also when determining fair use for the AI training.

“Meta knowingly copied and distributed a shocking amount of infringing material from the world’s most notorious infringing websites to serve its commercial ends. Meta’s brazen acts of infringement, unprecedented in the annals of copyright law, must be considered in the context of fair use and should weigh heavily against it,” the publishers conclude.

The publishers’ position doesn’t come as a surprise, as they are directly impacted by the legal debate over AI training data. However, the fact that law professors can have vastly different opinions on the fair use analysis, shows that this isn’t an easy matter to resolve in court.

And given the stakes at play, these and other AI-related fair-use questions could very well end up at the Supreme Court in a few years.

—

A copy of the Amicus Curiae brief from the Law Professors is available here (pdf) , and the brief from the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers can be found here (pdf)

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

Tech companies are racing to build the most powerful Artificial Intelligence (AI) but how these systems are trained is now mired in controversy.

Many major tech firms allegedly used huge amounts of copyrighted material to train their AI, without obtaining permission from rightsholders. This has triggered a series of copyright infringement lawsuits.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, is one of the companies being sued. Well-known book authors, including Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, and Christopher Golden, previously filed a class-action lawsuit against the company.

This lawsuit has a clear piracy angle, as Meta used BitTorrent to download archives of pirated books to use as training material for its Llama models.

Notably, the authors argued that, in addition to downloading pirated books from Anna’s Archive, Z-Library and other sources, Meta uploaded pirated books to third parties in the process.

Last month, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. Meta’s motion relied heavily on a fair use defense. Meanwhile, the authors argued that the downloading of millions of books cannot be classified as fair use, since the source of the books is clearly copyright-infringing.

Law Professors Back Both Sides

Given the high stakes, the motions for summary judgment attracted interest from various third parties. Through amicus brief filings, these groups are asking the court to consider their perspectives. Previously, several law professors backed Meta, for example, arguing that training AI using ‘pirated’ content might be fair use .

Not all law professors agree with this conclusion, however, as highlighted in a new amicus brief from another group of law professors. This “friend of the court” brief, submitted last Friday, clearly backs the authors.

These law professors, who don’t address the BitTorrent-specific allegations, believe that using copyrighted books to train AI is not fair use.

“Meta’s claim that its unauthorized copying of plaintiffs’ works to train its large language models is fair use is a breathtaking request for greater legal privileges than courts have ever granted human authors. It should be rejected,” they write.

Using copyrighted works without permission might be considered ‘fair use’ if the use creates a new and transformative product. However, the law professors don’t believe that’s the case here.

Instead, they see the AI end product as a commercial tool that has a similar purpose to the books it is trained on; namely, to educate people.

“The use of copyrighted works to train generative models is not ‘transformative,’ because using works for that purpose is not relevantly different from using them to educate human authors, which is a principal original purpose of all of plaintiffs’ works,” the professors state.

“That training use is also not ‘transformative’ because its purpose is to enable the creation of works that compete with the copied works in the same markets – a purpose that, when pursued by a for-profit company like Meta, also makes the use undeniably ‘commercial’.”

In their 19-page brief, the professors dispute Meta’s fair use defense by analyzing several relevant factors. They ultimately conclude that these factors weigh “conclusively” against a finding of fair use.

Publishers Highlight Brazen Widespread Piracy

The book authors also receive support from other third parties, including The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers ( STM ), which also submitted an amicus curiae brief last Friday.

The publishers’ brief highlights the shadow libraries that Meta allegedly used to source some of its training materials. These include Z-Library, Library Genesis and Anna’s Archive, which have all been subject to legal problems of their own; such as the criminal prosecution of two alleged Z-Library operators.

“The illegal websites that Meta used to purloin a trove of copyrighted works have been the repeated subject of enforcement,” the publishers’ brief reads.

“Collectively, they have been found by multiple courts to be illegal and against the public interest; investigated by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice, including for potential espionage; had their domains shut down; and had their operators arrested.”

Meta previously argued that its alleged use of copyrighted books as training inputs could be seen as fair use, regardless of the source of the data. However, STM sees this differently. They say that the “use of stolen content matters.”

The brief urges the court to consider these pirate sources, not only regarding the direct copyright infringement claim, but also when determining fair use for the AI training.

“Meta knowingly copied and distributed a shocking amount of infringing material from the world’s most notorious infringing websites to serve its commercial ends. Meta’s brazen acts of infringement, unprecedented in the annals of copyright law, must be considered in the context of fair use and should weigh heavily against it,” the publishers conclude.

The publishers’ position doesn’t come as a surprise, as they are directly impacted by the legal debate over AI training data. However, the fact that law professors can have vastly different opinions on the fair use analysis, shows that this isn’t an easy matter to resolve in court.

And given the stakes at play, these and other AI-related fair-use questions could very well end up at the Supreme Court in a few years.

—

A copy of the Amicus Curiae brief from the Law Professors is available here (pdf) , and the brief from the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers can be found here (pdf)

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