After a decade of focusing efforts overseas, the push for website blocking has landed back on American shores.

The fierce backlash against SOPA effectively shelved domestic site blocking initiatives in the U.S., but that hesitation appears to have evaporated.

With Representative Zoe Lofgren’s introduction of the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act ( FADPA ) in February, the controversial mechanism of court-ordered blocking against foreign ‘pirate’ sites is no longer just a foreign issue; on The Hill it’s a hot topic once again.

Should the proposal become law, FADPA would enable rightsholders to restrict access to verified pirate sites, run by foreign operators. Site blocking orders would apply to both Internet providers and public DNS resolvers.

Lofgren’s bill received broad support from rightsholders and other lawmakers are showing interest as well. According to reports, U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa is working on a second site blocking bill , which could increase political momentum.

EFF: Site Blocking is a Terrible Idea

When U.S. site blocking legislation was first introduced fourteen years ago, these measures were still a novelty. Since then, however, dozens of countries have implemented formal blocking procedures, some more strict than others.

That doesn’t mean that site blocking lacks opposition. In the United States, the Electronic Frontier Foundation ( EFF ) says it will fight back against the renewed push in favor of blocking, decrying the proposals as a “terrible idea”.

“These new proposals would let rights holders get federal court orders forcing ISPs and DNS providers to block entire websites based on accusations of infringing copyright. Lawmakers claim they’re targeting “pirate” sites—but what they’re really doing is building an internet kill switch,” EFF’s Joe Mullin writes.

The EFF sees the site blocking proposals as a threat to the free and open internet. This critique is grounded in the risk that legitimate sites could find themselves blocked as collateral damage if they share IP-addresses or hosting with pirate sites.

These concerns are not hypothetical. Recent events have shown that site blocking measures still affect legitimate sites, such as when Google Drive and Cloudflare-linked sites were taken offline in response to Italian blocking demands.

Site Blocking Doesn’t Work

According to EFF, site blocking is both “dangerously blunt” and “trivially easy to evade”. People can use VPN services to evade blocking measures, for example, or switch to alternative DNS resolvers that are not subject to blocking restrictions.

The group doesn’t see site blocking as an effective tool to curb piracy, but as a broader effort to institute a censorship regime.

“Site-blocking legislation is an attempt to build a new American censorship system by letting private actors get dangerous infrastructure-level control over internet access,” Mullin warns .

At this stage, little is known about the technical implementation of the proposed site blocking efforts. Rightsholders know that it’s not going to solve their piracy problem, but they argue that it’s better than doing nothing.

Reviving the U.S. Site Blocking Protests

Pushback against the site blocking proposals was expected, but it will be difficult to equal the massive opposition against SOPA in 2012, which turned into a global Internet protest .

EFF is committed nonetheless and Mullin gladly reminds lawmakers of this ghost of the past .

“The question is whether lawmakers remember what happened the last time they tried to mess with the foundations of the open web. If they don’t, they’re going to find out the hard way. Again,” he says.

“Site-blocking laws are dangerous, unnecessary, and ineffective. Lawmakers need to hear—loud and clear—that Americans don’t support government-mandated internet censorship. Not for copyright enforcement. Not for anything.”

Similar to thirteen years ago, EFF has set up a dedicated page inviting members of the public to reach out to their representative in Congress, to share any concerns they may have.

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

After a decade of focusing efforts overseas, the push for website blocking has landed back on American shores.

The fierce backlash against SOPA effectively shelved domestic site blocking initiatives in the U.S., but that hesitation appears to have evaporated.

With Representative Zoe Lofgren’s introduction of the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act ( FADPA ) in February, the controversial mechanism of court-ordered blocking against foreign ‘pirate’ sites is no longer just a foreign issue; on The Hill it’s a hot topic once again.

Should the proposal become law, FADPA would enable rightsholders to restrict access to verified pirate sites, run by foreign operators. Site blocking orders would apply to both Internet providers and public DNS resolvers.

Lofgren’s bill received broad support from rightsholders and other lawmakers are showing interest as well. According to reports, U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa is working on a second site blocking bill , which could increase political momentum.

EFF: Site Blocking is a Terrible Idea

When U.S. site blocking legislation was first introduced fourteen years ago, these measures were still a novelty. Since then, however, dozens of countries have implemented formal blocking procedures, some more strict than others.

That doesn’t mean that site blocking lacks opposition. In the United States, the Electronic Frontier Foundation ( EFF ) says it will fight back against the renewed push in favor of blocking, decrying the proposals as a “terrible idea”.

“These new proposals would let rights holders get federal court orders forcing ISPs and DNS providers to block entire websites based on accusations of infringing copyright. Lawmakers claim they’re targeting “pirate” sites—but what they’re really doing is building an internet kill switch,” EFF’s Joe Mullin writes.

The EFF sees the site blocking proposals as a threat to the free and open internet. This critique is grounded in the risk that legitimate sites could find themselves blocked as collateral damage if they share IP-addresses or hosting with pirate sites.

These concerns are not hypothetical. Recent events have shown that site blocking measures still affect legitimate sites, such as when Google Drive and Cloudflare-linked sites were taken offline in response to Italian blocking demands.

Site Blocking Doesn’t Work

According to EFF, site blocking is both “dangerously blunt” and “trivially easy to evade”. People can use VPN services to evade blocking measures, for example, or switch to alternative DNS resolvers that are not subject to blocking restrictions.

The group doesn’t see site blocking as an effective tool to curb piracy, but as a broader effort to institute a censorship regime.

“Site-blocking legislation is an attempt to build a new American censorship system by letting private actors get dangerous infrastructure-level control over internet access,” Mullin warns .

At this stage, little is known about the technical implementation of the proposed site blocking efforts. Rightsholders know that it’s not going to solve their piracy problem, but they argue that it’s better than doing nothing.

Reviving the U.S. Site Blocking Protests

Pushback against the site blocking proposals was expected, but it will be difficult to equal the massive opposition against SOPA in 2012, which turned into a global Internet protest .

EFF is committed nonetheless and Mullin gladly reminds lawmakers of this ghost of the past .

“The question is whether lawmakers remember what happened the last time they tried to mess with the foundations of the open web. If they don’t, they’re going to find out the hard way. Again,” he says.

“Site-blocking laws are dangerous, unnecessary, and ineffective. Lawmakers need to hear—loud and clear—that Americans don’t support government-mandated internet censorship. Not for copyright enforcement. Not for anything.”

Similar to thirteen years ago, EFF has set up a dedicated page inviting members of the public to reach out to their representative in Congress, to share any concerns they may have.

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

After a decade of focusing efforts overseas, the push for website blocking has landed back on American shores.

The fierce backlash against SOPA effectively shelved domestic site blocking initiatives in the U.S., but that hesitation appears to have evaporated.

With Representative Zoe Lofgren’s introduction of the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act ( FADPA ) in February, the controversial mechanism of court-ordered blocking against foreign ‘pirate’ sites is no longer just a foreign issue; on The Hill it’s a hot topic once again.

Should the proposal become law, FADPA would enable rightsholders to restrict access to verified pirate sites, run by foreign operators. Site blocking orders would apply to both Internet providers and public DNS resolvers.

Lofgren’s bill received broad support from rightsholders and other lawmakers are showing interest as well. According to reports, U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa is working on a second site blocking bill , which could increase political momentum.

EFF: Site Blocking is a Terrible Idea

When U.S. site blocking legislation was first introduced fourteen years ago, these measures were still a novelty. Since then, however, dozens of countries have implemented formal blocking procedures, some more strict than others.

That doesn’t mean that site blocking lacks opposition. In the United States, the Electronic Frontier Foundation ( EFF ) says it will fight back against the renewed push in favor of blocking, decrying the proposals as a “terrible idea”.

“These new proposals would let rights holders get federal court orders forcing ISPs and DNS providers to block entire websites based on accusations of infringing copyright. Lawmakers claim they’re targeting “pirate” sites—but what they’re really doing is building an internet kill switch,” EFF’s Joe Mullin writes.

The EFF sees the site blocking proposals as a threat to the free and open internet. This critique is grounded in the risk that legitimate sites could find themselves blocked as collateral damage if they share IP-addresses or hosting with pirate sites.

These concerns are not hypothetical. Recent events have shown that site blocking measures still affect legitimate sites, such as when Google Drive and Cloudflare-linked sites were taken offline in response to Italian blocking demands.

Site Blocking Doesn’t Work

According to EFF, site blocking is both “dangerously blunt” and “trivially easy to evade”. People can use VPN services to evade blocking measures, for example, or switch to alternative DNS resolvers that are not subject to blocking restrictions.

The group doesn’t see site blocking as an effective tool to curb piracy, but as a broader effort to institute a censorship regime.

“Site-blocking legislation is an attempt to build a new American censorship system by letting private actors get dangerous infrastructure-level control over internet access,” Mullin warns .

At this stage, little is known about the technical implementation of the proposed site blocking efforts. Rightsholders know that it’s not going to solve their piracy problem, but they argue that it’s better than doing nothing.

Reviving the U.S. Site Blocking Protests

Pushback against the site blocking proposals was expected, but it will be difficult to equal the massive opposition against SOPA in 2012, which turned into a global Internet protest .

EFF is committed nonetheless and Mullin gladly reminds lawmakers of this ghost of the past .

“The question is whether lawmakers remember what happened the last time they tried to mess with the foundations of the open web. If they don’t, they’re going to find out the hard way. Again,” he says.

“Site-blocking laws are dangerous, unnecessary, and ineffective. Lawmakers need to hear—loud and clear—that Americans don’t support government-mandated internet censorship. Not for copyright enforcement. Not for anything.”

Similar to thirteen years ago, EFF has set up a dedicated page inviting members of the public to reach out to their representative in Congress, to share any concerns they may have.

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

Released in 2013, The Pirate Bay documentary TPB-AFK offers insight into a pivotal moment in Internet history.

Created by Simon Klose, the film follows three Pirate Bay founders during their trial in Sweden. True to the nature of the site, it was made widely available online for free.

People could still buy copies or support the film directly, but those who didn’t want to spend a dime could grab a copy though torrent sites, including The Pirate Bay, or stream it on YouTube. The Creative Commons ( CC BY-NC-SA ) license even allowed fans to share their own copies with others.

“You don’t need permission to copy and share my film. But you can’t make money off it,” Klose explained at the time. “By using a Creative Commons license, I am making it legal for the audience to copy and share the film.”

2013: Copies Taken Down by Hollywood

Soon after the premiere, hundreds of copies of the documentary started to surface online, resulting in millions of views. While this was good news for the director, it also caused controversy.

In the months following the release, several Hollywood studios including HBO, Paramount, Fox and Lionsgate, sent DMCA notices to Google, asking the search giant to remove links to the documentary. In most cases the requests were honored.

It wasn’t clear whether the takedowns were sent in error, or if it was a targeted attack on the Pirate Bay documentary. Whatever the case, the unwarranted censorship outraged the director.

After the erroneous takedowns were highlighted in the news, Google eventually reached out offering to set the record straight by reinstating the removed links. But not before teaching a valuable lesson about copyright power dynamics.

“To me, it’s a depressive lesson that Google rather acts as a private proxy for dinosaur copyright enforcement than helping indie filmmakers experiment with sustainable distribution models,” Klose said in 2013.

Takedowns Remove TPB-AFK copies from YouTube

With this backstory in mind, it came as a surprise to learn that copies of the TPB-AFK documentary were removed from YouTube recently. This includes the official release posted on the TPBAFK YouTube channel that was embedded across hundreds of websites.

“This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Nonami Docs,” YouTube’s message reads.

Nonami Docs isn’t some Hollywood adversary with a Pirate Bay grudge. On the contrary, it’s linked to Simon Klose, who used it to remove copies of his own documentary from YouTube. That also includes uploads by third-parties.

Peter, who runs the anarchi.st YouTube channel, is one of the people who was hit by a takedown notice. The channel shares films relating to class struggle without running advertisements on them, in line with TPB-AFK’s Creative Commons license, but was removed nonetheless.

“You can imagine my surprise when my channel got a copyright strike because Simon Klose wanted the film removed from YouTube. It is difficult to imagine a more ironic copyright action,” Peter tells us.

The channel owner confirmed that the notice did indeed come from the TPB-AFK director but opted not to file a counter notice as he could do without the added stress. Nonetheless, he was puzzled by the takedown. And he’s not the only one.

Klose Sees YouTube as a Radicalizing Platform

Creative Commons licenses are typically considered irrevocable, which makes the takedown all the more questionable. However, it turns out that Klose hasn’t had a change of heart when it comes to copyright, his actions are targeted at YouTube specifically.

The director informs us that he did indeed remove the film from YouTube. This is not a copyright issue. He simply doesn’t want TPB-AFK to be present on Google’s streaming platform any longer.

“I’ve taken it off YouTube, because I think YouTube has become a radicalizing platform full of hate, and I don’t want my film there anymore. It’s still available on torrent sites,” Klose says.

The director didn’t add any further background but pointed us to his latest film, “ Hacking Hate “, which discusses in detail how social media platforms and YouTube are used as a tool to proliferate extreme content while profiting from it.

While it’s clear that Klose has changed his mind about YouTube rather than copyright, one can question whether copyright takedowns are the right way to enforce this. Especially when people are technically allowed to share the film.

The removals could be a good strategy to put a spotlight on the “Hacking Hate” documentary, but since Klose never sought public attention for the removals, his actions seem more intrinsically motivated.

It’s not clear how many instances of the documentary were removed from YouTube, but many copies of TPB-AFK are still available on the platform at the time of writing. Whether the uploaders of these copies filed counter-notices or were simply not targeted is unclear.

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

Released in 2013, The Pirate Bay documentary TPB-AFK offers insight into a pivotal moment in Internet history.

Created by Simon Klose, the film follows three Pirate Bay founders during their trial in Sweden. True to the nature of the site, it was made widely available online for free.

People could still buy copies or support the film directly, but those who didn’t want to spend a dime could grab a copy though torrent sites, including The Pirate Bay, or stream it on YouTube. The Creative Commons ( CC BY-NC-SA ) license even allowed fans to share their own copies with others.

“You don’t need permission to copy and share my film. But you can’t make money off it,” Klose explained at the time. “By using a Creative Commons license, I am making it legal for the audience to copy and share the film.”

2013: Copies Taken Down by Hollywood

Soon after the premiere, hundreds of copies of the documentary started to surface online, resulting in millions of views. While this was good news for the director, it also caused controversy.

In the months following the release, several Hollywood studios including HBO, Paramount, Fox and Lionsgate, sent DMCA notices to Google, asking the search giant to remove links to the documentary. In most cases the requests were honored.

It wasn’t clear whether the takedowns were sent in error, or if it was a targeted attack on the Pirate Bay documentary. Whatever the case, the unwarranted censorship outraged the director.

After the erroneous takedowns were highlighted in the news, Google eventually reached out offering to set the record straight by reinstating the removed links. But not before teaching a valuable lesson about copyright power dynamics.

“To me, it’s a depressive lesson that Google rather acts as a private proxy for dinosaur copyright enforcement than helping indie filmmakers experiment with sustainable distribution models,” Klose said in 2013.

Takedowns Remove TPB-AFK copies from YouTube

With this backstory in mind, it came as a surprise to learn that copies of the TPB-AFK documentary were removed from YouTube recently. This includes the official release posted on the TPBAFK YouTube channel that was embedded across hundreds of websites.

“This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Nonami Docs,” YouTube’s message reads.

Nonami Docs isn’t some Hollywood adversary with a Pirate Bay grudge. On the contrary, it’s linked to Simon Klose, who used it to remove copies of his own documentary from YouTube. That also includes uploads by third-parties.

Peter, who runs the anarchi.st YouTube channel, is one of the people who was hit by a takedown notice. The channel shares films relating to class struggle without running advertisements on them, in line with TPB-AFK’s Creative Commons license, but was removed nonetheless.

“You can imagine my surprise when my channel got a copyright strike because Simon Klose wanted the film removed from YouTube. It is difficult to imagine a more ironic copyright action,” Peter tells us.

The channel owner confirmed that the notice did indeed come from the TPB-AFK director but opted not to file a counter notice as he could do without the added stress. Nonetheless, he was puzzled by the takedown. And he’s not the only one.

Klose Sees YouTube as a Radicalizing Platform

Creative Commons licenses are typically considered irrevocable, which makes the takedown all the more questionable. However, it turns out that Klose hasn’t had a change of heart when it comes to copyright, his actions are targeted at YouTube specifically.

The director informs us that he did indeed remove the film from YouTube. This is not a copyright issue. He simply doesn’t want TPB-AFK to be present on Google’s streaming platform any longer.

“I’ve taken it off YouTube, because I think YouTube has become a radicalizing platform full of hate, and I don’t want my film there anymore. It’s still available on torrent sites,” Klose says.

The director didn’t add any further background but pointed us to his latest film, “ Hacking Hate “, which discusses in detail how social media platforms and YouTube are used as a tool to proliferate extreme content while profiting from it.

While it’s clear that Klose has changed his mind about YouTube rather than copyright, one can question whether copyright takedowns are the right way to enforce this. Especially when people are technically allowed to share the film.

The removals could be a good strategy to put a spotlight on the “Hacking Hate” documentary, but since Klose never sought public attention for the removals, his actions seem more intrinsically motivated.

It’s not clear how many instances of the documentary were removed from YouTube, but many copies of TPB-AFK are still available on the platform at the time of writing. Whether the uploaders of these copies filed counter-notices or were simply not targeted is unclear.

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

Released in 2013, The Pirate Bay documentary TPB-AFK offers insight into a pivotal moment in Internet history.

Created by Simon Klose, the film follows three Pirate Bay founders during their trial in Sweden. True to the nature of the site, it was made widely available online for free.

People could still buy copies or support the film directly, but those who didn’t want to spend a dime could grab a copy though torrent sites, including The Pirate Bay, or stream it on YouTube. The Creative Commons ( CC BY-NC-SA ) license even allowed fans to share their own copies with others.

“You don’t need permission to copy and share my film. But you can’t make money off it,” Klose explained at the time. “By using a Creative Commons license, I am making it legal for the audience to copy and share the film.”

2013: Copies Taken Down by Hollywood

Soon after the premiere, hundreds of copies of the documentary started to surface online, resulting in millions of views. While this was good news for the director, it also caused controversy.

In the months following the release, several Hollywood studios including HBO, Paramount, Fox and Lionsgate, sent DMCA notices to Google, asking the search giant to remove links to the documentary. In most cases the requests were honored.

It wasn’t clear whether the takedowns were sent in error, or if it was a targeted attack on the Pirate Bay documentary. Whatever the case, the unwarranted censorship outraged the director.

After the erroneous takedowns were highlighted in the news, Google eventually reached out offering to set the record straight by reinstating the removed links. But not before teaching a valuable lesson about copyright power dynamics.

“To me, it’s a depressive lesson that Google rather acts as a private proxy for dinosaur copyright enforcement than helping indie filmmakers experiment with sustainable distribution models,” Klose said in 2013.

Takedowns Remove TPB-AFK copies from YouTube

With this backstory in mind, it came as a surprise to learn that copies of the TPB-AFK documentary were removed from YouTube recently. This includes the official release posted on the TPBAFK YouTube channel that was embedded across hundreds of websites.

“This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Nonami Docs,” YouTube’s message reads.

Nonami Docs isn’t some Hollywood adversary with a Pirate Bay grudge. On the contrary, it’s linked to Simon Klose, who used it to remove copies of his own documentary from YouTube. That also includes uploads by third-parties.

Peter, who runs the anarchi.st YouTube channel, is one of the people who was hit by a takedown notice. The channel shares films relating to class struggle without running advertisements on them, in line with TPB-AFK’s Creative Commons license, but was removed nonetheless.

“You can imagine my surprise when my channel got a copyright strike because Simon Klose wanted the film removed from YouTube. It is difficult to imagine a more ironic copyright action,” Peter tells us.

The channel owner confirmed that the notice did indeed come from the TPB-AFK director but opted not to file a counter notice as he could do without the added stress. Nonetheless, he was puzzled by the takedown. And he’s not the only one.

Klose Sees YouTube as a Radicalizing Platform

Creative Commons licenses are typically considered irrevocable, which makes the takedown all the more questionable. However, it turns out that Klose hasn’t had a change of heart when it comes to copyright, his actions are targeted at YouTube specifically.

The director informs us that he did indeed remove the film from YouTube. This is not a copyright issue. He simply doesn’t want TPB-AFK to be present on Google’s streaming platform any longer.

“I’ve taken it off YouTube, because I think YouTube has become a radicalizing platform full of hate, and I don’t want my film there anymore. It’s still available on torrent sites,” Klose says.

The director didn’t add any further background but pointed us to his latest film, “ Hacking Hate “, which discusses in detail how social media platforms and YouTube are used as a tool to proliferate extreme content while profiting from it.

While it’s clear that Klose has changed his mind about YouTube rather than copyright, one can question whether copyright takedowns are the right way to enforce this. Especially when people are technically allowed to share the film.

The removals could be a good strategy to put a spotlight on the “Hacking Hate” documentary, but since Klose never sought public attention for the removals, his actions seem more intrinsically motivated.

It’s not clear how many instances of the documentary were removed from YouTube, but many copies of TPB-AFK are still available on the platform at the time of writing. Whether the uploaders of these copies filed counter-notices or were simply not targeted is unclear.

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

As the most prolific copyright litigant in the United States, adult entertainment company Strike 3 Holdings has filed over 15,000 lawsuits in federal courts.

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

Many of these cases result in confidential settlements or are quietly dismissed and never heard of again. A tiny percentage proceed to a full contest in court, while the remaining cases are simply ignored by defendants.

From a legal standpoint, failing to respond to a lawsuit, regardless of the validity of the claims, is the worst option. Not putting up a defense allows the claiming party to move for a default judgment where the court, because it only hears one side of the case, may find it easier to agree with the claiming party.

Strike 3 Strikes Gold

Strike 3 has obtained dozens, if not hundreds of default judgments and this week appears to have struck gold in a Georgia federal court. In three separate cases, U.S. District Judge Steven Grimberg awarded default judgments in favor of the adult entertainment company.

These uncontested cases are fairly straightforward. After filing complaints against John Does initially identified only by their IP-addresses, Strike 3 obtained subpoenas to obtain associated subscriber data from their ISPs.

These named defendants, who allegedly shared dozens of pirated films each via BitTorrent, were then served and asked to appear in court. The defendants in all cases failed to make an appearance, after which Strike 3 requested default judgments based on the following details.

– Defendant A. Salomon shared 130 copyrighted works without permission
– Defendant H. Alexander shared 115 copyrighted works without permission
– Defendant K. Forbes shared 35 copyrighted works without permission

Under U.S. Copyright Law, statutory damages for willful copyright infringement can reach $150,000 per infringed work. That could’ve resulted in almost $20 million in damages for defendant Salomon and more than $5 million for Forbes. However, Strike 3 opted for a more “reasonable” request.

Strike 3’s motion for default judgment requested damages of $750 per work, the statutory minimum for non-willful infringement.

“Defendant infringed 130 of Plaintiff’s Works, which therefore equates to $97,500. Thus, the recovery sought has been reduced to the absolute minimum and is reasonable,” the company argued.

Court Issues Default Judgments

After reviewing the paperwork and Strike 3’s self-proclaimed ‘reasonable’ damages requests, Judge Steven Grimberg granted all three default judgments this week.

The three judgments are part of a consolidated docket and use a nearly identical template. The only differences are the personal details, the number of infringed works, and the related damages amount. For Salomon, this results in $97,500 of owed damages, while Alexander and Forbes must pay $86,250 and $26,250 respectively.

In addition to the damages, Judge Grimberg also issued a permanent injunction, ordering the defendants to stop pirating Strike 3’s works and destroy all copies still in their possession.

These types of lawsuits are so common by now that they rarely make headlines anymore. However, this week’s substantial judgments show that they can have real consequences.

Strike 3 filed nearly 4,000 complaints last year, so these three cases represent a tiny fraction. Given the potential reward, however, it’s understandable that the company continues down this path.

For anyone involved in one of these cases, innocent or not, the defaults serve as a reminder that legal paperwork should not be ignored. And if defendants are innocent, history has shown that it can be worth putting up a serious defense.

—

Copies of the three default judgments issues by U.S. District Judge Steven Grimberg are available here ( 1 , 2 , 3 ).

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

As the most prolific copyright litigant in the United States, adult entertainment company Strike 3 Holdings has filed over 15,000 lawsuits in federal courts.

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

Many of these cases result in confidential settlements or are quietly dismissed and never heard of again. A tiny percentage proceed to a full contest in court, while the remaining cases are simply ignored by defendants.

From a legal standpoint, failing to respond to a lawsuit, regardless of the validity of the claims, is the worst option. Not putting up a defense allows the claiming party to move for a default judgment where the court, because it only hears one side of the case, may find it easier to agree with the claiming party.

Strike 3 Strikes Gold

Strike 3 has obtained dozens, if not hundreds of default judgments and this week appears to have struck gold in a Georgia federal court. In three separate cases, U.S. District Judge Steven Grimberg awarded default judgments in favor of the adult entertainment company.

These uncontested cases are fairly straightforward. After filing complaints against John Does initially identified only by their IP-addresses, Strike 3 obtained subpoenas to obtain associated subscriber data from their ISPs.

These named defendants, who allegedly shared dozens of pirated films each via BitTorrent, were then served and asked to appear in court. The defendants in all cases failed to make an appearance, after which Strike 3 requested default judgments based on the following details.

– Defendant A. Salomon shared 130 copyrighted works without permission
– Defendant H. Alexander shared 115 copyrighted works without permission
– Defendant K. Forbes shared 35 copyrighted works without permission

Under U.S. Copyright Law, statutory damages for willful copyright infringement can reach $150,000 per infringed work. That could’ve resulted in almost $20 million in damages for defendant Salomon and more than $5 million for Forbes. However, Strike 3 opted for a more “reasonable” request.

Strike 3’s motion for default judgment requested damages of $750 per work, the statutory minimum for non-willful infringement.

“Defendant infringed 130 of Plaintiff’s Works, which therefore equates to $97,500. Thus, the recovery sought has been reduced to the absolute minimum and is reasonable,” the company argued.

Court Issues Default Judgments

After reviewing the paperwork and Strike 3’s self-proclaimed ‘reasonable’ damages requests, Judge Steven Grimberg granted all three default judgments this week.

The three judgments are part of a consolidated docket and use a nearly identical template. The only differences are the personal details, the number of infringed works, and the related damages amount. For Salomon, this results in $97,500 of owed damages, while Alexander and Forbes must pay $86,250 and $26,250 respectively.

In addition to the damages, Judge Grimberg also issued a permanent injunction, ordering the defendants to stop pirating Strike 3’s works and destroy all copies still in their possession.

These types of lawsuits are so common by now that they rarely make headlines anymore. However, this week’s substantial judgments show that they can have real consequences.

Strike 3 filed nearly 4,000 complaints last year, so these three cases represent a tiny fraction. Given the potential reward, however, it’s understandable that the company continues down this path.

For anyone involved in one of these cases, innocent or not, the defaults serve as a reminder that legal paperwork should not be ignored. And if defendants are innocent, history has shown that it can be worth putting up a serious defense.

—

Copies of the three default judgments issues by U.S. District Judge Steven Grimberg are available here ( 1 , 2 , 3 ).

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

As the most prolific copyright litigant in the United States, adult entertainment company Strike 3 Holdings has filed over 15,000 lawsuits in federal courts.

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

Many of these cases result in confidential settlements or are quietly dismissed and never heard of again. A tiny percentage proceed to a full contest in court, while the remaining cases are simply ignored by defendants.

From a legal standpoint, failing to respond to a lawsuit, regardless of the validity of the claims, is the worst option. Not putting up a defense allows the claiming party to move for a default judgment where the court, because it only hears one side of the case, may find it easier to agree with the claiming party.

Strike 3 Strikes Gold

Strike 3 has obtained dozens, if not hundreds of default judgments and this week appears to have struck gold in a Georgia federal court. In three separate cases, U.S. District Judge Steven Grimberg awarded default judgments in favor of the adult entertainment company.

These uncontested cases are fairly straightforward. After filing complaints against John Does initially identified only by their IP-addresses, Strike 3 obtained subpoenas to obtain associated subscriber data from their ISPs.

These named defendants, who allegedly shared dozens of pirated films each via BitTorrent, were then served and asked to appear in court. The defendants in all cases failed to make an appearance, after which Strike 3 requested default judgments based on the following details.

– Defendant A. Salomon shared 130 copyrighted works without permission
– Defendant H. Alexander shared 115 copyrighted works without permission
– Defendant K. Forbes shared 35 copyrighted works without permission

Under U.S. Copyright Law, statutory damages for willful copyright infringement can reach $150,000 per infringed work. That could’ve resulted in almost $20 million in damages for defendant Salomon and more than $5 million for Forbes. However, Strike 3 opted for a more “reasonable” request.

Strike 3’s motion for default judgment requested damages of $750 per work, the statutory minimum for non-willful infringement.

“Defendant infringed 130 of Plaintiff’s Works, which therefore equates to $97,500. Thus, the recovery sought has been reduced to the absolute minimum and is reasonable,” the company argued.

Court Issues Default Judgments

After reviewing the paperwork and Strike 3’s self-proclaimed ‘reasonable’ damages requests, Judge Steven Grimberg granted all three default judgments this week.

The three judgments are part of a consolidated docket and use a nearly identical template. The only differences are the personal details, the number of infringed works, and the related damages amount. For Salomon, this results in $97,500 of owed damages, while Alexander and Forbes must pay $86,250 and $26,250 respectively.

In addition to the damages, Judge Grimberg also issued a permanent injunction, ordering the defendants to stop pirating Strike 3’s works and destroy all copies still in their possession.

These types of lawsuits are so common by now that they rarely make headlines anymore. However, this week’s substantial judgments show that they can have real consequences.

Strike 3 filed nearly 4,000 complaints last year, so these three cases represent a tiny fraction. Given the potential reward, however, it’s understandable that the company continues down this path.

For anyone involved in one of these cases, innocent or not, the defaults serve as a reminder that legal paperwork should not be ignored. And if defendants are innocent, history has shown that it can be worth putting up a serious defense.

—

Copies of the three default judgments issues by U.S. District Judge Steven Grimberg are available here ( 1 , 2 , 3 ).

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