Just days after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko appeared on TV.

Pointing at a map of Ukraine split into four parts, the Putin ally directed attention toward Moldova, stoking fears that the former soviet republic could be next on Moscow’s list.

One month later, Moldova applied for EU membership. In June 2022, EU leaders granted candidate status to the Republic of Moldova, noting that its reform agenda must continue until EU conditions are met.

Harmonization With EU Copyright Law

Under the EU-Moldova Association Agreement of 2014, Moldova was required to reform copyright law to meet EU standards. An EU assessment published early 2021 identified many areas in need of attention ( pdf ).

According to an EU statement dated January 2022, Moldova’s State Agency for Intellectual Property ( AGEPI ) responded with a new draft transposing nine EU directives in full and four EU directives in part.

The EU went on to stress the importance of ensuring transparency and balance “within the system governing the remuneration of authors and performers in a weak bargaining position.” The establishment of “an efficient system” for the collective management of copyright and related rights was also mentioned.

Back in Moldova, rightsholder groups were moving ever closer to boiling point.

AGEPI “Working Against Rightsholders”

Last June, in an open letter to the government on behalf of more than 650 members, state-approved collective management organizations National Copyright Association (ANCO) and the National Association of Phonogram Producers and Performers ( ANPFI ) vented their anger in public.

Accusing Moldova’s State Agency for Intellectual Property (AGEPI) of corruption, working against rightsholders, and misleading the government, the groups described the revised draft copyright law as “absolutely incompatible” with Moldova’s status as an EU candidate.

On behalf of their members including artists, composers, and performers, ANCO and ANPFI called on Moldova’s parliament to postpone the approval of the draft until reports from international experts could be reviewed.

Concerns were mounting that the draft undermined artists and collective management groups while granting “excessive powers” to the head of AGEPI to “decide on all key issues” related to collective management.

Law Was Already Being Approved

On July 3, 2022, ANPFI revealed that the law had been approved during a June 22 government meeting and again on July 1 in the first reading by parliament.

“Regrettably, during the last 5 years, AGEPI acted only through attacks against authors, copyright holders and related rights, manifested by illegal decisions issued by AGEPI, which were later found to be illegal up to the Supreme Court of Justice,” the group told the government.

“As a result of these attacks, the National Anticorruption Center/Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office initiated a criminal investigation into the illegal acts of the decision-makers within AGEPI. AGEPI’s competence in the field of copyright and related rights was found by the Courts and qualified as ‘… defiance of the legal order…'”

CISAC Asks Moldova’s Parliament Not to Pass Law

In an astonishing series of published articles and open letters, including those addressed directly to the Prime Minister, ANPFI accused AGEPI of being “intoxicated with forgeries, manipulations and corruption.”

On July 6, 2022, ANPFI published a letter sent by the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers ( CISAC ), a global network of 227 collecting societies representing four million creators, to the Moldovan parliament.

The full letter can be read here but suffice to say, CISAC wasn’t impressed with the draft.

Following ANPFI pleas to the president of Moldova, the U.S. Amadassor to Moldova, and the European Union, a closed government discussion on July 27 led to Moldova’s new copyright law being passed by parliament a day later.

ANPFI Warns of New Competition From Outside Moldova

With the law set to come into force in the second week of October 2022, ANPFI accused AGEPI of lining up foreign-backed copyright management organizations to operate in Moldova.

According to ANPFI and reports published earlier in the year, those organizations receive backing from RAO (Russian Authors’ Society) and VOIS (All-Russian Organization of Intellectual Property), who ANPFI accuse of benefiting from similar arrangements in Georgia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan .

Whether those claims were investigated is unclear but on October 9, 2022, the new law was officially published by the government of Moldova and there was no turning back.

In order to operate legally under the new law, ANPFI and ANCO were required to reapply for their status as approved collective management organizations. The same would’ve applied to any new applicants but if there have been approvals, they are yet to be reported.

As a result, no collective rights management groups appear to be operating in Moldova. The country has continued to listen to music, of course, but since no group has received official approval, artists aren’t earning any money when music is played on the radio, on TV, in public places, or anywhere else. Even when people make copies of tracks under Moldova’s private copyright exception, nobody gets paid.

With a smooth transition under the new law rendered impossible right from the start, AGEPI’s latest move appears to have turned artists’ rights into a dumpster fire.

AGEPI Terminates Both ANPFI and ANCO

Having scrutinized the provisions of the new ‘Law on Copyright and Related rights’ passed in October, the head of Moldova’s State Agency for Intellectual Property (AGEPI) determined that ANPFI and ANCO failed to meet the specified standards.

As a result, ANCO’s work since 2013 and ANPFI’s work since 2019, came to an abrupt end last week when AGEPI terminated their status as collective management organizations.

“The decision was issued in accordance with the provisions of the new Law on Copyright and Related rights, which entered into force on 09.10.2022,” AGEPI’s announcement reads.

“We remind the associations interested in approval as a collective management organization (which have legal personality, being registered in accordance with the provisions of the legislation, and are based in the Republic of Moldova), about the need to cumulatively fulfill the conditions provided for in art. 84 para. (1) from Law no. 230/2022 regarding copyright and related rights.”

“Three months after the entry into force of the new law, not a single public association has received approval from the AGEPI to operate as a collective management organization,” says ANCO chairman, Liviu Stirbu.

“This means that the scope of copyright and related rights goes beyond the legal framework, and any use of musical works on radio and television is illegal.”

Moldova’s law was introduced to ensure “a high degree of protection for authors and holders of copyright and related rights.”

Map credit

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

Popular Internet infrastructure service Cloudflare has come under a lot of pressure from copyright holders in recent years.

The company offers its services to millions of sites. This includes multinationals, governments, but also some of the world’s leading pirate sites.

These sites have proven to be quite a headache for the San Francisco-based tech company. Ideally, however, the company prefers not to be the arbiter of what content is allowed and what is not.

The Curation Conundrum

The company reiterated its position a few months ago. To shield itself from escalating removal demands, including plain censorship, Cloudflare said it would no longer terminate customers without a court order.

Just days after taking this hardened approach, Cloudflare reversed its position. Citing an immediate threat to human life, CEO Matthew Prince justified blocking access to the controversial Kiwi Farms site.

There’s no question that death threats are in a league of their own, but copyright holders would also like to see more cooperation from Cloudflare. This call is backed by a recent report from brand protection company Corsearch.

Corsearch is no stranger to copyright issues. The company works with several of the largest rightsholders and its subsidiary Incopro has produced a wealth of piracy research , some in collaboration with governments. In this case, the research focuses on Cloudflare.

Whirepaper: Cloudflare & Pirate Sites

The overall tenor of the whitepaper is that when compared to other intermediaries, Cloudflare appears to be linked to a relatively high percentage of torrent sites. Of all the sites flagged by Corsearch, which are all demoted by Google as well, half use Cloudflare’s CDN service.

“Cloudflare is not the host of these websites. However, the host is not readily identifiable and Cloudflare is most closely associated with 49% of websites notified for delisting by Corsearch,” the report notes.

There’s no denying that Cloudflare stands out but it should be noted that the company is not a hosting provider, like the others on the list. In addition to Cloudflare, these pirate sites may use Amazon or Google’s services as well, even though that’s not immediately visible.

Besides pirate sites, the report also links Cloudflare to trademarking. Again, it is the most common online intermediary for these outlets.

Technically, Cloudflare can’t take these sites offline, as they are hosted elsewhere. However, Corsearch believes that the company could and should do more to tackle the piracy problem. And it has some ideas on where to start.

“Cloudflare is uniquely positioned to do more to protect rights holders and substantially to suppress the scourge of online piracy and counterfeiting,” the report reads.

“We are asking Cloudflare to do more to support rights owners by voluntarily implementing certain measures. These measures are reasonable, proportionate and if adopted by Cloudflare will have a significant impact.”

Recommendations

Corsearch doesn’t have just one, but a whole list of suggestions for the CDN provider. Most of these boil down to terminating services to sites that others deem to be infringing. Those include the following;

– Cloudflare should terminate accounts of sites that are demoted or deindexed by Google search.

– Cloudflare should withdraw services to any site that’s deemed unlawful by a recognized law enforcement body or the ‘ Infringing Website List ’ (IWL).

– Cloudflare should ban sites that are on the US Trade Representative’s annual notorious markets list .

– Cloudflare should stop working with sites that are added to the European Union’s Counterfeit and Piracy Watchlist .

What Can Go Wrong?

While it’s understandable that rightsholders want Cloudflare to do more, these suggestions are not without issues of their own. The IWL, for example, is private and can’t be scrutinized by the public. As reported recently , this includes domains of organizations such as GitHub, Blogspot, and a Portuguese University.

The USTR’s Notorious Market lists and the EU’s Piracy Watchlist also have various entries that deserve some nuance. These include the Chinese Wechat, which has over a billion users, as well as Russia’s largest social media platform VK.

Up until recently, USTR even listed Amazon’s foreign online stores as “notorious markets” . Does that mean that these shouldn’t be allowed to operate?

Given Cloudflare’s previous comments, it seems unlikely that the company will start banning accounts left and right. That being said, Corsearch also has some other suggestions that may be more realistic.

The report proposes a robust “Know-Your-Client” policy, for example. In addition, it calls for a comprehensive transparency report where Cloudflare would disclose which domain names are flagged by rightsholders and how often.

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

Tomás Escobar is the CEO of Acámica, the Argentina-based tech education company he co-founded a decade ago.

Escobar studied Computer Engineering at the National University of Córdoba and in 2014 appeared in MIT Technology Review’s ‘ Innovator Under 35 ‘ list. Before Acámica, however, Escobar also created a rather successful website; Cuevana.

In 2011, just four years after its launch, Cuevana.tv was among the top 20 most-visited sites in Argentina. When audiences grew in Chile, Peru, Mexico, and beyond, it was clear that trouble lay ahead. In 2012, one of a rumored nine Cuevana administrators was arrested in Chile following a complaint by HBO.

In a 2019 interview , in response to a question asking why he closed Cuevana, Escobar said that the site “grew a lot” in 2013. From there, discussions took place with the industry to see if a business could be developed. When that process encountered difficulties, Escobar decided on a new project – Acámica.

What happened in the background with Cuevana is much less clear, but the bottom line was straightforward. By some mechanism or another, a site that looked like Cuevana carried on regardless.

Not even an appearance on the U.S. Government’s list of most notorious pirate sites in 2015 made that much difference. Cuevana.tv as a domain eventually fell by the wayside, replaced by Cuevana2 and today’s Cuevana3 variants, many of which enjoy tens of millions of visits per month.

In a more recent report to the USTR, the MPA said that in August 2022 alone, a handful of Cuevana-branded domains received 130 million visits. Hollywood had already reported some success after seizing domains a year earlier, but the destruction of the Cuevana movement remained elusive.

Damaging Cuevana’s Domains

Cuevana3.me, which first appeared in 2018, was enjoying ridiculous amounts of traffic last year after the site recovered from the seizure of its .io domain. In August 2022, the .me domain received 66.71 million visits and was ranked the 53rd and 68th most popular site in Argentina and Mexico, respectively.

At some point, Cuevana3.me started utilizing subdomains, possibly to mitigate downranking by Google due to excessive volumes of DMCA notices. Of course, the strategy was spotted by rightsholders; Disney sent notices like this one which tackled Cuevana3.me subdomains and at the same time, those deployed by FMovies for the same reason.

Cuevana3.me Comes Under Attack

Cuevana3-branded domains were also appearing on national ISP blacklists, including in Peru, courtesy of local government IP body INDECOPI . Then late September 2022, Cuevana3.me was suddenly reported to Google thousands of times over just a few weeks.

By early December 2022, the peak had passed. Rightsholders no longer seemed interested in Cuevana3.me, but that was for good reason. In what may have been a tactic to avoid being tarred with the .me brush for too long at Google, Cuevana3.me began seamlessly redirecting users to Cuevana3.ai.

Predictably, it didn’t take long for that to get noticed either.

Cuevana3.ai Also Under Attack

Once again, high volumes of DMCA notices were sent to Google in a short space of time. The names of the most prolific senders won’t come as a surprise since they’re all members of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment – Disney, Warner Bros., Amazon, Sony, Apple, NBCUniversal and Paramount.

There were also signs that the studios sometimes used Smart Protection, a Spanish anti-piracy company that reportedly uses artificial intelligence to efficiently deal with infringing websites.

New Domain, Rinse and Repeat?

If AI really did lose interest in Cuevana3’s .ai domain in early January, that would’ve been quite fitting, albeit for an extremely predictable reason.

A Twitter account previously associated with Cuevana3’s .io and .me domains announced the move to yet another new domain on January 10, 2023.

“Now we are Cuevana3.be,” it began.

“Spread the word, we are the only original Cuevana, the only one that has been at the forefront for years, providing the best content in HD, in your language and totally free. Help us spread the new domain.”

Given that the old domains redirect, finding the new domain won’t be an issue for regular users. It wasn’t a problem for Warner Bros. either. The company sent a DMCA notice to Google targeting the site’s main content page on January 7, three days before the official announcement on Twitter.

Are These Tactics Working?

If we go back to the data cited by the MPA last year, the domain cuevana3.me received 66.71 million visits in August 2022 alone. That’s a big number that the MPA would’ve hoped to reduce with its DMCA notices and from various reports, the knock-on effects of Google downranking.

Since then, the site has adopted (and then booted) cuevana3.ai and is now located at cuevana3.be. That should’ve had at least some effect on the site’s traffic.

According to SimilarWeb data, there is no obvious effect. Cuevana3 appears to have no problem adapting and has lost no traffic as a result. It even appears to have gained some.

At the time of writing, Warner, Sony, Amazon, Apple, Paramount, Lionsgate, Netflix, MGM and dozens of others are sending DMCA notices targeting the new .be domain.

A total of 194 individual requests have removed 885 URLs in 2023 but that number will dramatically increase in the weeks to come. At what point Cuevana3 will roll out yet another new domain is unclear, but as long as it keeps retaining the old ones, maintaining traffic won’t be a problem.

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

In a September 2022 blog post, YouTube’s Global Head of Music revealed that in the 12 months between July 2021 and June 2022, YouTube paid over $6 billion to the music industry.

Trade groups, including IFPI and the RIAA, believe the return should be even greater.

So-called ‘stream-ripping’ services typically use YouTube as a source while allowing users to keep copies of copyright tracks on their devices. According to IFPI’s Engaging With Music Report 2022 ( pdf ) , an estimated 27% of Indian music consumers obtain music this way.

India’s Music Piracy Problem

An IFPI announcement published yesterday focuses on India’s piracy problem. The industry group says that while Indian consumers have access to more licensed digital services than ever before, three-quarters of internet users use unlicensed or illegal ways to listen to music in the country. That statement deserves nuance.

While around three-quarters of internet users do obtain content illegally, 88% of Indian music consumers use licensed streaming services too. That’s an impressive level of penetration overall, but IFPI would much prefer it if users consumed all of their content legally. For that to happen, India’s stream-ripping habit needs to be addressed.

Sony, Universal and Warner Take Legal Action

IFPI’s announcement followed the publication of a ruling handed down by the High Court in Delhi on January 12, 2023. The case, Sony Music Entertainment India Private Limited & Ors. vs. YT1S.COM, YT1S.PRO, YT1S.DE & ORS. , aims to reduce stream-ripping piracy by compelling India’s internet service providers to block popular stream-ripping platforms.

“The ruling, which was published by the Delhi High Court today, requires ISPs in India to block access to 20 stream ripping sites, disrupting one of the most prominent forms of music piracy in the country,” IFPI’s announcement reads.

The ruling made available by the High Court mentions three domains specifically. Yt1s.com enjoys around 18 to 20 million monthly visits, while the apparently connected yt1s.de reaches around two million. Yt1s.pro is a distant runner-up with less than 20,000 visits per month.

No further domains appear in the ruling itself, but the court mentions 18 defendants “on the basis of their domain IDs.”

High Court Informed About Stream-Ripping

Justice C Hari Shankar’s ruling begins by noting that the plaintiffs are copyright holders, meaning that any entity that transmits, broadcasts, or reproduces their recordings without permission, violates India’s Copyright Act.

“[The stream-ripping sites] provide services whereby copyrighted content on various platforms, primarily YouTube, could be downloaded in MP3 or MP4 format by copying the YouTube link in the space provided in the website. This phenomenon, [Counsel for the plaintiffs] submits, is known as ‘stream ripping’,” the Judge notes.

The labels informed the court that since the stream-rippers mask their WHOIS details, it would be impossible to pursue them in separate proceedings. That’s important for rightsholders seeking a dynamic injunction, which the labels are in this case.

Are Stream-Ripping Services ‘Rogue Sites’?

The Judge says that the plaintiffs describe the stream-ripping platforms as “rogue sites.” When defendants are labeled as such, that puts plaintiffs in a strong position, but does it apply in this case?

The term ‘rogue site’ was defined during a blocking case involving torrent site 1337x.to. Very broadly, if the primary purpose of a site is to infringe, the owner fails to respond to takedown notices and has a general disregard for copyright, that’s usually considered a rogue site. Hiding WHOIS details also supports a ‘rogue site’ finding.

In this case, the labels are seeking a permanent injunction against the 18 stream-ripping platforms (or any other “mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites or any other iteration thereof”) to restrain them from “hosting, reproducing or otherwise making available to the public or facilitating the downloading of the content in which the plaintiffs own copyright.”

Justice Shankar states that based on the facts before him, the plaintiffs make out a prima facie case, one that justifies an interlocutory injunction to prevent further infringement.

This includes instructions for ISPs to block the domains in question, plus any new domains that may appear as a “mirror/redirect/alphanumeric avatar of the websites which already stand injuncted.”

The interim order can be found here (pdf). The next hearing is listed for Feb 22, 2023

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

At the start of last year, a French bill went into effect that sanctioned the formation of a new regulatory body .

The old HADOPI anti-piracy outfit merged with the Higher Audiovisual Council, creating the Audiovisual and Digital Communication Regulatory Authority ( Arcom ).

Sports Piracy Crackdown

Along with this organizational change, Arcom received new anti-piracy powers. It can order online services to rapidly take down unlicensed streams of live sporting events, for example.

Eager to put the new law to work, sports organizations quickly began reporting infringing sites. These referrals were investigated by Arcom, which forwarded hundreds of blocking requests to Internet providers over subsequent months.

Arcom has published several updates to highlight the effectiveness of these measures. After six months, it reported that sports-related piracy was already cut in half .

New Anti-Piracy Agreement

This week, another major step was taken in the battle against piracy. Arcom announced that the four major Internet providers in France (Orange, Bouygues Télécom and SFR) have signed an agreement with the Association for the Protection of Sports Programs ( APPS ) to further streamline the process.

Details of the agreement are not being shared in public, but Arcom says the goal is to strengthen and facilitate anti-piracy measures to protect sporting events. In addition, the parties also reached an agreement on how the costs of blocking should be covered.

The French Telecoms Federation (FFTélécoms) welcomes the deal, which took more than a year to negotiate. Under the new terms, the roles and obligations of the parties are more clear.

“We are delighted to have reached an agreement. It will allow Internet access providers to benefit from a contractual and technical framework that facilitates the implementation of these blockades and ensures that rightsholders are even better protected against illegal piracy,” says FFTélécoms president Liza Bellulo.

The Federation also taps other online intermediaries, including search engines and hosting providers, arguing that they should also play a greater role in the battle against piracy.

“We now call for new agreements to be concluded by new players such as hosting providers and search engines in order to implement this ‘safety net’ throughout the digital ecosystem,” Bellulo notes.

IPTV?

Rightsholders are also pleased with the outcome, the sports protection association says. The deal will make anti-piracy efforts more efficient and able to adapt to modern forms of piracy that are less reliant on websites.

“This agreement will make it possible to accelerate and consolidate the fight against sports piracy, while leaving open the possibility of adapting it to the new forms of illegal access, notably IPTV services,” says APPS President Maxime Saada.

“Collectively, we will be able to better target illegal services that attack the pillar of sports financing, which are audiovisual rights.”

How IPTV services will be targeted is unknown, but it’s possible that instead of focusing on domain names, ISPs will block streaming server IP-addresses too. This is already common practice in other countries, such as the UK and Canada.

1,299 Domain Names

Arcom, meanwhile, takes the opportunity to highlight the successes of the past year. Through 85 referrals from sports companies and additional court rulings, a total of 1,299 domain names were blocked.

As mentioned earlier, half a year ago the anti-piracy agency already claimed that 50% of all sports piracy had evaporated . We haven’t seen any similar updates since, but at this rate, there won’t be any pirates left by the end of the year.

Plenty of challenges remain though. Arcom says that some people circumvent ISP blockades using VPNs or by changing their DNS servers. Those issues will be harder to root out.

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

As one of the most notorious torrent sites, The Pirate Bay has been blocked by ISPs around the world.

The UK was one of the first countries to do so more than a decade ago when the High Court ordered local ISPs to prevent users from accessing the site.

These ISP blockades have ignited a cat-and-mouse game, with pirates actively looking for alternative routes to access the site. A popular option is ‘proxy’ sites, which allow access to The Pirate Bay through alternative URLs.

‘The Proxy Bay’ is a site that helps people to find these alternatives. The site doesn’t act as a proxy service directly but does provide an overview of available options elsewhere on the web.

The legality of the service is up for debate but in the UK, thepirateproxybay.com and similar sites have been added to court-sanctioned blocklists.

Police Alert GitHub

Backed by this knowledge, City of London Police’s Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) reached out to GitHub a few days ago. On behalf of music group BPI, PIPCU sent a takedown request to the Microsoft-owned company, alerting it to the alleged criminal activity taking place on its domain.

As it turns out, one of the Proxy Bay sites used a GitHub subdomain at proxybay.github.com. According to the DMCA notice, this meant that GitHub could potentially be aiding criminal activity.

“This site is in breach of UK law, namely Copyright, Design & Patents Act 1988, Offences under the Fraud Act 2006 and Conspiracy to Defraud,” PIPCU wrote.

In response to the DMCA notice, GitHub swiftly disabled the domain, which now returns a 404 error instead. In most cases, that would effectively end the matter, but the Proxy Bay operator isn’t giving up just yet.

Proxy Bay Files Counternotice

A few hours ago, the operator of the site sent a DMCA counternotice to GitHub, arguing that PIPCU’s takedown request is wrong because there isn’t any copyright infringing content hosted on the site.

“The person claiming DMCA doesn’t understand, that there is no content hosted on proxybay.github.com hence why it is wrong to send a DMCA request for it,” the site owner notes.

“This is why companies like [private] and other reputable Domains Registrators like [private] ignore those fake DMCA claims submitted by bots which are just automatic submissions triggered by keywords.”

The counternotice doesn’t refer to the police directly but uses the term ‘mister DMCA robot’ instead. The notice asks for further clarification on the claimed infringements and notes that the operator is happy to remove content if needed.

“There are no content/media of any kind hosted on proxybay.github.com, if there is – again ask mister DMCA robot to provide with exact links of media files which were infringed and I will be glad to remove them from repository.”

Reinstated?

The counternotice puts the ball back into PIPCU’s court. The police or the rightsholders they represent now have two weeks to file a lawsuit against The Proxy Bay operator. If that doesn’t happen, the DMCA prescribes that GitHub should restore the domain.

In the past, we have seen that counternotice can indeed be effective. Three years ago, Popcorn Time challenged a DMCA takedown request from the Motion Picture Association. And indeed, two weeks later, GitHub restored the repository .

Whatever the outcome, the counternotice clearly shows that The Proxy Bay isn’t giving up without a fight.

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

Early January 2022, Activision filed a lawsuit in the United States against German companies EngineOwning UG and CMN Holdings S.A., several named defendants, and 50 ‘John Does’

Activision claimed that the Call of Duty cheats sold by the defendants are copyright-infringing “circumvention devices” and trafficking in them is illegal under the DMCA. The gaming company went on to allege that selling the cheats to Activision customers constitutes contract interference and selling cheats into the market amounts to unfair competition.

In an amended complaint filed last September, Activision added new claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and two further counts of racketeering (RICO). On January 14, 2023, several EngineOwning-linked defendants responded by asking for the whole lawsuit to be thrown out.

Activision sued Defendants in Germany Two Years Ago

In a sprawling 53-page motion to dismiss, EngineOwning UG and ten named defendants begin by describing Activision Blizzard as a $50 billion dollar company with offices all around the world, including three in Germany.

They note that ten of the defendants are German citizens living in Germany, yet Activision chose to sue them in California for alleged conduct occurring entirely abroad, mostly in Germany. “The appropriate forum for such a case is not the United States – but Germany,” their motion reads.

The defendants go on to reveal that Activision is already suing two of them in Germany, in a lawsuit that was filed at least a year before Activision filed its lawsuit in the United States.

“Plaintiff previously filed a lawsuit based on the same underlying unfair competition allegations in Germany against two of the Foreign Defendants in this case – Valentin Rick and EngineOwning UG…..more than two years ago.

“That case is still pending and could be resolved one way or another as soon as February 7, 2023,” the defendants inform the court.

Since Activision did not mention the German action in its original or amended complaints, the defendants present a theory for the consideration of the court.

“Perhaps Plaintiff feared such disclosure would make the Court think this matter is better left resolved in the German court system. After all, all of the Foreign Defendants making this Motion are foreigners with no connection to the United States. Moreover, none of the Foreign Defendants’ conduct at issue was even alleged to have occurred in the United States,” they add.

Allegations Too Broad, Too Vague

Over the last year, Activision has named more than 20 defendants, in addition to a potential 50 ‘Doe’ defendants. The motion claims that when Activision alleges any conduct, it tends to be general in nature while targeting “unspecified defendants”, i.e it doesn’t differentiate between one defendant and another.

“Does Plaintiff mean every Defendant literally conducted every described action? Or does Plaintiff mean that every Defendant is simply just liable for the actions of every other Defendant? Or is it a mix?” the motion reads.

“This extremely vague form of pleading makes it impossible to tell who did what where and when. Instead, Plaintiff leaves it to each Defendant, and the Court, to guess.”

Grounds For Dismissal – Jurisdiction

The motion says that for general jurisdiction to exist over a nonresident defendant, it must be shown that the defendant engaged in “continuous and systematic” business contacts. They insist that’s the not the case here.

Activision doesn’t allege that the defendants have ever lived or held property in the U.S., or paid any taxes there. As for Activision’s claim that the defendants operated “at least two servers” in the United States, the defendants cite Dish Network, LLC v. Jadoo TV, Inc. .

“[T]he physical location of servers cannot confer the necessary contacts between a defendant and a forum for the exercise of personal jurisdiction,” the citation reads.

In respect of specific jurisdiction, the defendants loop back to their earlier claims that Activision’s pleadings are too vague, because it “hopes to avoid having to plead any particular fact to any particular Defendant.”

Forum Non Conveniens

Looping back to the revelation that Activision is already pursuing two of the defendants in Germany, the defendants state that by its own actions, Activision has already shown which forum is most convenient.

“Under these circumstances, Germany, where each of the Foreign Defendants are amenable to service, is the more appropriate forum,” the motion adds.

“In this case, it is uncontroverted that all Foreign Defendants are amenable to service in Germany,” and if a case in Germany is successful, they add, “… injunctive relief and damages are potentially available to Plaintiff.”

Private and Public Interest

Given that none are citizens of the United States, the defendants say that the private and public interest factors weigh in favor of dismissal. They predict evidentiary problems, including the physical attendance of the defendants at a trial in California and whether unwilling witness can be compelled to travel. It might even prove difficult to enforce any judgment, they add.

The motion acknowledges that Activision has included U.S. defendants but dismisses that as an attempt to “make weight” and give the lawsuit a nexus to U.S. courts. Citing $35,000 in travel expenses alone, the defendants insist that a lawsuit in Germany makes much more sense.

The memo accompanying the motion to dismiss is available here (pdf)

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

Every day, millions of people enjoy fan-made subtitles. These files help foreigners to better understand English entertainment and provide the hearing impaired with a way to comprehend audio.

These subtitles are often used in combination with pirated films or TV shows, a thorn in the side of entertainment industry companies, who see this as a threat to their business.

This was also the case with Legendas.tv, a Brazilian fansubbing community founded in 2006. For many Brazilians, Legendas (Portuguese for ‘subtitles’) was their first introduction to characters such as Jack Bauer , Michael Scofield and Hiro Nakamura .

Legal Issues Came Early

The site, which relied on a team of contributors, soon gained a steady user base. With its presence growing, the concerns of major entertainment industry companies increased as well.

In 2009, legal pressure resulted in a temporary shutdown. Representing the major Hollywood studios, Brazil’s Antipirataria Association Cinema and Música (APCM) complained to the site’s hosting company Softlayer, which pulled the plug shortly after.

Legandas.tv’s downfall didn’t last for long. The site quickly switched to a new hosting company, from where it continued to serve subtitles. Meanwhile, sympathizers of the site went after the anti-piracy group. The hackers defaced APCM’s website which started to link to torrents.

Avid Consumers

Shortly after the crackdown, Legendas.tv team sent out a different message. While the entertainment companies were quick to brand them as pirates, Legendas argued that they were probably some of the most avid consumers.

“We are those who purchase the latest technology products and subscribe to the best cable TV packages and the most powerful broadband plans. We voraciously consume culture. And even with all that, we don’t think it’s enough,” the Legendas team wrote at the time.

The fansubbers argued that they simply wanted to consume content that wasn’t available legally around the world. At the time, many countries had to wait months before popular content became legally available, if it became available at all.

Mission Complete

Pirate sites and subtitle repositories have a history of meeting demand when availability is lacking. With the shortening of release windows and the rise of online streaming, the gap has started to close. Today, affordability is a bigger issue than availability. While there is still plenty of interest in subtitles, the Legendas team feels that it served its purpose.

A few days ago Legendas.tv voluntarily shut down. In a message to its users, the site explains that times have changed. There are now many legal platforms making the latest content available, with subtitles included.

“For many years Legendas.TV was one of the main repositories of Portuguese subtitles for a variety of content. Those were other times, the content was distributed in different ways and, after many years, the market took over with more and more accessible streaming services,” the translated note reads.

Funds Dried Up

There are other factors that played into the shutdown decision as well. The team notes that the financial position was dire due to a decline in user contributions and issues that prevented it from having decent advertisements.

The site was not being operated with a profit motive. However, the lack of funds made it harder to cover the costs. Three years ago, the operators threatened to shut the site down unless more people subscribed to their VIP plan. This extended the site’s life, but Legendas eventually made the decision to pull the plug.

The voluntary shutdown is the end of an era but the site’s subtitle archive won’t simply vanish. According to the farewell message, the files will be made available to the public in some shape or form during the weeks to come.

Other than that, Legendas’ journey has come to an end.

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