The arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov by French authorities in August 2024 was unexpected, the basis perhaps even more so.

The mere suggestion that social media operators in the United States could face arrest overseas, for the alleged misconduct of a minority of users among more than a billion, would not be well received.

According to reports, France accused a subset of Telegram users of committing a range of very serious crimes. Extending the blame to Durov personally, inaction in the face of complaints rendered him complicit, the authorities said.

Telegram’s New Leaf?

The detail of Durov’s unplanned extended French break, and how that was received behind the usually impenetrable walls of Telegram, remains mostly unclear. However, the bottom line seems to be a more flexible, perhaps even reformed Telegram, with a much-improved attitude towards content complaints, copyright notifications included.

Last September Telegram reportedly removed allegedly-infringing messages from Z-Library’s channel for copyright infringement. Telegram struck again earlier this month, deleting channels operated by Z-Library and fellow shadow library, Anna’s Archive.

RuTracker? Surely Not..

This week Russian media outlets reported that a similar fate had befallen RuTracker, a veteran torrent index/tracker still going strong after celebrating its 20th birthday last September.

First reported by CNews, the publication said that Telegram had “destroyed” RuTracker’s channel. That sits in stark contrast to the image below, which shows an early promotion of the channel on Twitter in 2017.

The body of the article clarifies that the channel was blocked and no longer appears in Telegram’s search results. CNews further reports that subscribers to the channel, over 27,900 according to Telegram data, can no longer access the channel’s content either.

Instead, they’re reportedly greeted by a message, stating that “This channel is unavailable due to copyright infringement.” A report published at Habr.com reports along the same lines, this time with an accompanying screenshot.

RuTracker’s attitude to copyright complaints previously earned the site a place on Russia’s blocklist. Operated by telecoms regulator Roscomnadzor, the list now features RuTracker as a permanent fixture, an inevitable response to ongoing infringement and zero compliance.

Telegram Means Little to RuTracker

While there are plenty of reports in Russia media concerning the blocking of RuTracker, our tests from outside Russia failed early Tuesday but on Wednesday, passed with flying colors.

Given that site-blocking is widespread in Russia, almost anything is possible. Interestingly, the supposed reason for the block – copyright infringement, according to reports – seems highly unlikely to have been triggered by a valid complaint.

On January 19, issues with the main RuTracker site, which operates separately from Telegram, prompted RuTracker staff to post a message about the issues to the channel, followed by an update a few minutes later.

No further posts have appeared since then, but that deserves more context.

Site Doesn’t Use Telegram Very Often

The post above that begins by addressing “Friends” is preceded by another bearing good news. “The service has been restored! If you have problems accessing the forum, clear your browser cache and cookies,” it reads.

That post is dated January 27, 2023, suggesting that RuTracker made little to no use of the channel during the last two years. Two short posts further back still is another marking RuTracker’s 18th birthday. It’s dated September 18, 2022 .

That celebration was viewed 286,200 times; this week’s post was viewed 6,500 times.

As a famous Russian once said: If it dies, it dies.

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

The arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov by French authorities in August 2024 was unexpected, the basis perhaps even more so.

The mere suggestion that social media operators in the United States could face arrest overseas, for the alleged misconduct of a minority of users among more than a billion, would not be well received.

According to reports, France accused a subset of Telegram users of committing a range of very serious crimes. Extending the blame to Durov personally, inaction in the face of complaints rendered him complicit, the authorities said.

Telegram’s New Leaf?

The detail of Durov’s unplanned extended French break, and how that was received behind the usually impenetrable walls of Telegram, remains mostly unclear. However, the bottom line seems to be a more flexible, perhaps even reformed Telegram, with a much-improved attitude towards content complaints, copyright notifications included.

Last September Telegram reportedly removed allegedly-infringing messages from Z-Library’s channel for copyright infringement. Telegram struck again earlier this month, deleting channels operated by Z-Library and fellow shadow library, Anna’s Archive.

RuTracker? Surely Not..

This week Russian media outlets reported that a similar fate had befallen RuTracker, a veteran torrent index/tracker still going strong after celebrating its 20th birthday last September.

First reported by CNews, the publication said that Telegram had “destroyed” RuTracker’s channel. That sits in stark contrast to the image below, which shows an early promotion of the channel on Twitter in 2017.

The body of the article clarifies that the channel was blocked and no longer appears in Telegram’s search results. CNews further reports that subscribers to the channel, over 27,900 according to Telegram data, can no longer access the channel’s content either.

Instead, they’re reportedly greeted by a message, stating that “This channel is unavailable due to copyright infringement.” A report published at Habr.com reports along the same lines, this time with an accompanying screenshot.

RuTracker’s attitude to copyright complaints previously earned the site a place on Russia’s blocklist. Operated by telecoms regulator Roscomnadzor, the list now features RuTracker as a permanent fixture, an inevitable response to ongoing infringement and zero compliance.

Telegram Means Little to RuTracker

While there are plenty of reports in Russia media concerning the blocking of RuTracker, our tests from outside Russia failed early Tuesday but on Wednesday, passed with flying colors.

Given that site-blocking is widespread in Russia, almost anything is possible. Interestingly, the supposed reason for the block – copyright infringement, according to reports – seems highly unlikely to have been triggered by a valid complaint.

On January 19, issues with the main RuTracker site, which operates separately from Telegram, prompted RuTracker staff to post a message about the issues to the channel, followed by an update a few minutes later.

No further posts have appeared since then, but that deserves more context.

Site Doesn’t Use Telegram Very Often

The post above that begins by addressing “Friends” is preceded by another bearing good news. “The service has been restored! If you have problems accessing the forum, clear your browser cache and cookies,” it reads.

That post is dated January 27, 2023, suggesting that RuTracker made little to no use of the channel during the last two years. Two short posts further back still is another marking RuTracker’s 18th birthday. It’s dated September 18, 2022 .

That celebration was viewed 286,200 times; this week’s post was viewed 6,500 times.

As a famous Russian once said: If it dies, it dies.

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

The arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov by French authorities in August 2024 was unexpected, the basis perhaps even more so.

The mere suggestion that social media operators in the United States could face arrest overseas, for the alleged misconduct of a minority of users among more than a billion, would not be well received.

According to reports, France accused a subset of Telegram users of committing a range of very serious crimes. Extending the blame to Durov personally, inaction in the face of complaints rendered him complicit, the authorities said.

Telegram’s New Leaf?

The detail of Durov’s unplanned extended French break, and how that was received behind the usually impenetrable walls of Telegram, remains mostly unclear. However, the bottom line seems to be a more flexible, perhaps even reformed Telegram, with a much-improved attitude towards content complaints, copyright notifications included.

Last September Telegram reportedly removed allegedly-infringing messages from Z-Library’s channel for copyright infringement. Telegram struck again earlier this month, deleting channels operated by Z-Library and fellow shadow library, Anna’s Archive.

RuTracker? Surely Not..

This week Russian media outlets reported that a similar fate had befallen RuTracker, a veteran torrent index/tracker still going strong after celebrating its 20th birthday last September.

First reported by CNews, the publication said that Telegram had “destroyed” RuTracker’s channel. That sits in stark contrast to the image below, which shows an early promotion of the channel on Twitter in 2017.

The body of the article clarifies that the channel was blocked and no longer appears in Telegram’s search results. CNews further reports that subscribers to the channel, over 27,900 according to Telegram data, can no longer access the channel’s content either.

Instead, they’re reportedly greeted by a message, stating that “This channel is unavailable due to copyright infringement.” A report published at Habr.com reports along the same lines, this time with an accompanying screenshot.

RuTracker’s attitude to copyright complaints previously earned the site a place on Russia’s blocklist. Operated by telecoms regulator Roscomnadzor, the list now features RuTracker as a permanent fixture, an inevitable response to ongoing infringement and zero compliance.

Telegram Means Little to RuTracker

While there are plenty of reports in Russia media concerning the blocking of RuTracker, our tests from outside Russia failed early Tuesday but on Wednesday, passed with flying colors.

Given that site-blocking is widespread in Russia, almost anything is possible. Interestingly, the supposed reason for the block – copyright infringement, according to reports – seems highly unlikely to have been triggered by a valid complaint.

On January 19, issues with the main RuTracker site, which operates separately from Telegram, prompted RuTracker staff to post a message about the issues to the channel, followed by an update a few minutes later.

No further posts have appeared since then, but that deserves more context.

Site Doesn’t Use Telegram Very Often

The post above that begins by addressing “Friends” is preceded by another bearing good news. “The service has been restored! If you have problems accessing the forum, clear your browser cache and cookies,” it reads.

That post is dated January 27, 2023, suggesting that RuTracker made little to no use of the channel during the last two years. Two short posts further back still is another marking RuTracker’s 18th birthday. It’s dated September 18, 2022 .

That celebration was viewed 286,200 times; this week’s post was viewed 6,500 times.

As a famous Russian once said: If it dies, it dies.

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

Reddit has gone head-to-head with a group of filmmakers over the past two years, aiming to protect the privacy of its users.

In three separate cases, the filmmakers subpoenaed Reddit for details of users who commented on various piracy related topics.

The movie companies said they are not planning to go after these people in court but want to use their comments as evidence in ongoing piracy liability lawsuits against Frontier Communications and other internet providers.

For example, the rightsholders argued that the Redditors’ comments are key evidence to show that ISPs didn’t implement a suitable repeat infringer policy, and that subsequently acted as a draw to pirating subscribers.

Reddit views the requests as intrusive. The company objected to the initial attempt , arguing that handing over the requested information would violate users’ First Amendment right to anonymous speech. Reddit later responded similarly to a second and third subpoena request.

The movie companies took these cases to a federal court, asking it to compel Reddit to comply. The court refused to do so, on several occasions and for varying reasons.

Court of Appeals

The film companies, including Killing Link Distribution and movant Voltage Holdings, disagreed with the lower court decisions. They appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, requesting a reversal .

In their opening brief at the Ninth Circuit, the movie companies stress that the users’ IP addresses requested in the DMCA subpoena are key evidence to show that Frontier is liable for its subscribers’ copyright infringements.

“Particularly, the IP addresses show that the users who made incriminating comments were, one, making these comments from Frontier’s Internet service, and two, had shared pirated copies of Appellants’ Works from the IP addresses.

“Further, the IP addresses are necessary to show that the users who boasted that Frontier took no action in response to DMCA notices were indeed users of Frontier’s service and thereby rebut Frontier’s safe harbor defense,” the movie companies add.

First Amendment?

Thus far, the movie companies haven’t had much success with these DMCA subpoenas against Reddit. However, U.S. District Court Judge James Donato offered some hope. While the court ultimately denied the request for a ‘de novo’ review this summer, it offered a different view on the First Amendment angle.

Unlike the earlier decisions, including that of the magistrate judge, Judge Donato didn’t see this as an anonymous speech matter.

“I don’t think this is a First Amendment case. It’s plain as day that these people were saying that they were involved in copyright infringement, and First Amendment does not protect infringing conduct,” the Judge said at a hearing.

Instead, the DMCA subpoena was denied because the requested information doesn’t justify the discovery burden on Reddit. The result is the same for the movie companies, but the courts’ varying reasons are part of the motivation to appeal.

Reddit Responds

Last month, Reddit responded to the opening brief, requesting the Court of Appeals to affirm that the DMCA subpoena should be quashed. This conclusion can be reached based on the lower court’s finding that the value of the requested information fails to justify the burden.

In addition, Reddit stresses that, contrary to Judge Donato’s finding, the First Amendment right to anonymous speech does come into play here as well.

“The anonymous speech targeted by the subpoena is unquestionably protected by the First Amendment. Talking about pirating movies is not copyright infringement, and even the ‘advocacy of illegal acts’ is ‘within the First Amendment’s core’,” Reddit writes in its answer.

Whether the court quashes the DMCA subpoena based on the ‘First Amendment’ or the ‘undue burden’ argument is irrelevant to the outcome of this case, Reddit notes. In both cases, it should be quashed.

“This Court should affirm the district court’s quashing of the subpoena because, at best, it is nothing more than a fishing expedition, and at worst, it is a targeted attempt to intimidate Reddit users and chill their speech,” Reddit notes.

EFF Chimes In

Reddit’s position is supported by the Electronic Frontier Foundation ( EFF ) which filed an amicus curiae brief at the Court of Appeals. The group agrees that the motion can be quashed for ‘undue burden’ but it is particularly interested in the anonymous speech angle.

EFF warns that Judge Donato’s remark shouldn’t trump existing jurisprudence. Instead, the Court of Appeals should follow the reasoning of the magistrate judge’s analysis regarding anonymous speech.

“It is well established that the First Amendment’s robust protections for anonymous speech apply to online speakers, and that they cannot be unmasked unless the party seeking to identify them can meet a heightened standard.

“It is also clear that there is no copyright exception to this rule,” EFF adds.

Movie Companies Double Down

Last week, the movie companies responded to arguments presented by Reddit and the EFF. According to their filing, Reddit did not raise the undue burden initially and there is no evidence on the record to suggest that it will be burdened by the DMCA subpoena request.

The appellants also counter the First Amendment arguments, stressing that there is no evidence that disclosing the IP-addresses of the six Redditors will chill any protected speech.

“The Reddit users’ comments are not protests of copyright laws or even discussion of copyright laws as described by Reddit but boasts of ‘deliberate unlawful copying [that] is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden variety theft,” they write.

In addition, the movie companies deny that there’s any “unmasking” involved here, as they are not asking for names and phone numbers (anymore). They claim the IP addresses will confirm that the Reddit users are Frontier subscribers, so the DMCA subpoena should be allowed.

All in all, it’s clear that both sides have entirely different views on the matter. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will take a closer look, and ultimately come to a decision.

—

A copy of the referenced opening brief is available here (pdf) . Here are copies of Reddit’s response (pdf) , EFF’s amicus curiae brief (pdf) , and the movie companies’ reply (pdf)

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

Reddit has gone head-to-head with a group of filmmakers over the past two years, aiming to protect the privacy of its users.

In three separate cases, the filmmakers subpoenaed Reddit for details of users who commented on various piracy related topics.

The movie companies said they are not planning to go after these people in court but want to use their comments as evidence in ongoing piracy liability lawsuits against Frontier Communications and other internet providers.

For example, the rightsholders argued that the Redditors’ comments are key evidence to show that ISPs didn’t implement a suitable repeat infringer policy, and that subsequently acted as a draw to pirating subscribers.

Reddit views the requests as intrusive. The company objected to the initial attempt , arguing that handing over the requested information would violate users’ First Amendment right to anonymous speech. Reddit later responded similarly to a second and third subpoena request.

The movie companies took these cases to a federal court, asking it to compel Reddit to comply. The court refused to do so, on several occasions and for varying reasons.

Court of Appeals

The film companies, including Killing Link Distribution and movant Voltage Holdings, disagreed with the lower court decisions. They appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, requesting a reversal .

In their opening brief at the Ninth Circuit, the movie companies stress that the users’ IP addresses requested in the DMCA subpoena are key evidence to show that Frontier is liable for its subscribers’ copyright infringements.

“Particularly, the IP addresses show that the users who made incriminating comments were, one, making these comments from Frontier’s Internet service, and two, had shared pirated copies of Appellants’ Works from the IP addresses.

“Further, the IP addresses are necessary to show that the users who boasted that Frontier took no action in response to DMCA notices were indeed users of Frontier’s service and thereby rebut Frontier’s safe harbor defense,” the movie companies add.

First Amendment?

Thus far, the movie companies haven’t had much success with these DMCA subpoenas against Reddit. However, U.S. District Court Judge James Donato offered some hope. While the court ultimately denied the request for a ‘de novo’ review this summer, it offered a different view on the First Amendment angle.

Unlike the earlier decisions, including that of the magistrate judge, Judge Donato didn’t see this as an anonymous speech matter.

“I don’t think this is a First Amendment case. It’s plain as day that these people were saying that they were involved in copyright infringement, and First Amendment does not protect infringing conduct,” the Judge said at a hearing.

Instead, the DMCA subpoena was denied because the requested information doesn’t justify the discovery burden on Reddit. The result is the same for the movie companies, but the courts’ varying reasons are part of the motivation to appeal.

Reddit Responds

Last month, Reddit responded to the opening brief, requesting the Court of Appeals to affirm that the DMCA subpoena should be quashed. This conclusion can be reached based on the lower court’s finding that the value of the requested information fails to justify the burden.

In addition, Reddit stresses that, contrary to Judge Donato’s finding, the First Amendment right to anonymous speech does come into play here as well.

“The anonymous speech targeted by the subpoena is unquestionably protected by the First Amendment. Talking about pirating movies is not copyright infringement, and even the ‘advocacy of illegal acts’ is ‘within the First Amendment’s core’,” Reddit writes in its answer.

Whether the court quashes the DMCA subpoena based on the ‘First Amendment’ or the ‘undue burden’ argument is irrelevant to the outcome of this case, Reddit notes. In both cases, it should be quashed.

“This Court should affirm the district court’s quashing of the subpoena because, at best, it is nothing more than a fishing expedition, and at worst, it is a targeted attempt to intimidate Reddit users and chill their speech,” Reddit notes.

EFF Chimes In

Reddit’s position is supported by the Electronic Frontier Foundation ( EFF ) which filed an amicus curiae brief at the Court of Appeals. The group agrees that the motion can be quashed for ‘undue burden’ but it is particularly interested in the anonymous speech angle.

EFF warns that Judge Donato’s remark shouldn’t trump existing jurisprudence. Instead, the Court of Appeals should follow the reasoning of the magistrate judge’s analysis regarding anonymous speech.

“It is well established that the First Amendment’s robust protections for anonymous speech apply to online speakers, and that they cannot be unmasked unless the party seeking to identify them can meet a heightened standard.

“It is also clear that there is no copyright exception to this rule,” EFF adds.

Movie Companies Double Down

Last week, the movie companies responded to arguments presented by Reddit and the EFF. According to their filing, Reddit did not raise the undue burden initially and there is no evidence on the record to suggest that it will be burdened by the DMCA subpoena request.

The appellants also counter the First Amendment arguments, stressing that there is no evidence that disclosing the IP-addresses of the six Redditors will chill any protected speech.

“The Reddit users’ comments are not protests of copyright laws or even discussion of copyright laws as described by Reddit but boasts of ‘deliberate unlawful copying [that] is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden variety theft,” they write.

In addition, the movie companies deny that there’s any “unmasking” involved here, as they are not asking for names and phone numbers (anymore). They claim the IP addresses will confirm that the Reddit users are Frontier subscribers, so the DMCA subpoena should be allowed.

All in all, it’s clear that both sides have entirely different views on the matter. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will take a closer look, and ultimately come to a decision.

—

A copy of the referenced opening brief is available here (pdf) . Here are copies of Reddit’s response (pdf) , EFF’s amicus curiae brief (pdf) , and the movie companies’ reply (pdf)

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

Reddit has gone head-to-head with a group of filmmakers over the past two years, aiming to protect the privacy of its users.

In three separate cases, the filmmakers subpoenaed Reddit for details of users who commented on various piracy related topics.

The movie companies said they are not planning to go after these people in court but want to use their comments as evidence in ongoing piracy liability lawsuits against Frontier Communications and other internet providers.

For example, the rightsholders argued that the Redditors’ comments are key evidence to show that ISPs didn’t implement a suitable repeat infringer policy, and that subsequently acted as a draw to pirating subscribers.

Reddit views the requests as intrusive. The company objected to the initial attempt , arguing that handing over the requested information would violate users’ First Amendment right to anonymous speech. Reddit later responded similarly to a second and third subpoena request.

The movie companies took these cases to a federal court, asking it to compel Reddit to comply. The court refused to do so, on several occasions and for varying reasons.

Court of Appeals

The film companies, including Killing Link Distribution and movant Voltage Holdings, disagreed with the lower court decisions. They appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, requesting a reversal .

In their opening brief at the Ninth Circuit, the movie companies stress that the users’ IP addresses requested in the DMCA subpoena are key evidence to show that Frontier is liable for its subscribers’ copyright infringements.

“Particularly, the IP addresses show that the users who made incriminating comments were, one, making these comments from Frontier’s Internet service, and two, had shared pirated copies of Appellants’ Works from the IP addresses.

“Further, the IP addresses are necessary to show that the users who boasted that Frontier took no action in response to DMCA notices were indeed users of Frontier’s service and thereby rebut Frontier’s safe harbor defense,” the movie companies add.

First Amendment?

Thus far, the movie companies haven’t had much success with these DMCA subpoenas against Reddit. However, U.S. District Court Judge James Donato offered some hope. While the court ultimately denied the request for a ‘de novo’ review this summer, it offered a different view on the First Amendment angle.

Unlike the earlier decisions, including that of the magistrate judge, Judge Donato didn’t see this as an anonymous speech matter.

“I don’t think this is a First Amendment case. It’s plain as day that these people were saying that they were involved in copyright infringement, and First Amendment does not protect infringing conduct,” the Judge said at a hearing.

Instead, the DMCA subpoena was denied because the requested information doesn’t justify the discovery burden on Reddit. The result is the same for the movie companies, but the courts’ varying reasons are part of the motivation to appeal.

Reddit Responds

Last month, Reddit responded to the opening brief, requesting the Court of Appeals to affirm that the DMCA subpoena should be quashed. This conclusion can be reached based on the lower court’s finding that the value of the requested information fails to justify the burden.

In addition, Reddit stresses that, contrary to Judge Donato’s finding, the First Amendment right to anonymous speech does come into play here as well.

“The anonymous speech targeted by the subpoena is unquestionably protected by the First Amendment. Talking about pirating movies is not copyright infringement, and even the ‘advocacy of illegal acts’ is ‘within the First Amendment’s core’,” Reddit writes in its answer.

Whether the court quashes the DMCA subpoena based on the ‘First Amendment’ or the ‘undue burden’ argument is irrelevant to the outcome of this case, Reddit notes. In both cases, it should be quashed.

“This Court should affirm the district court’s quashing of the subpoena because, at best, it is nothing more than a fishing expedition, and at worst, it is a targeted attempt to intimidate Reddit users and chill their speech,” Reddit notes.

EFF Chimes In

Reddit’s position is supported by the Electronic Frontier Foundation ( EFF ) which filed an amicus curiae brief at the Court of Appeals. The group agrees that the motion can be quashed for ‘undue burden’ but it is particularly interested in the anonymous speech angle.

EFF warns that Judge Donato’s remark shouldn’t trump existing jurisprudence. Instead, the Court of Appeals should follow the reasoning of the magistrate judge’s analysis regarding anonymous speech.

“It is well established that the First Amendment’s robust protections for anonymous speech apply to online speakers, and that they cannot be unmasked unless the party seeking to identify them can meet a heightened standard.

“It is also clear that there is no copyright exception to this rule,” EFF adds.

Movie Companies Double Down

Last week, the movie companies responded to arguments presented by Reddit and the EFF. According to their filing, Reddit did not raise the undue burden initially and there is no evidence on the record to suggest that it will be burdened by the DMCA subpoena request.

The appellants also counter the First Amendment arguments, stressing that there is no evidence that disclosing the IP-addresses of the six Redditors will chill any protected speech.

“The Reddit users’ comments are not protests of copyright laws or even discussion of copyright laws as described by Reddit but boasts of ‘deliberate unlawful copying [that] is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden variety theft,” they write.

In addition, the movie companies deny that there’s any “unmasking” involved here, as they are not asking for names and phone numbers (anymore). They claim the IP addresses will confirm that the Reddit users are Frontier subscribers, so the DMCA subpoena should be allowed.

All in all, it’s clear that both sides have entirely different views on the matter. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will take a closer look, and ultimately come to a decision.

—

A copy of the referenced opening brief is available here (pdf) . Here are copies of Reddit’s response (pdf) , EFF’s amicus curiae brief (pdf) , and the movie companies’ reply (pdf)

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

Over the past two years, AI development has progressed at a rapid pace.

This includes large language models, which are typically trained on broad datasets of texts; the more, the better.

When AI hit the mainstream, it became apparent that many rightsholders had concerns over the unauthorized use of their copyright works. Creatives including photographers, artists, musicians, journalists, and authors, responded by filed copyright infringement lawsuits to protect their rights.

Book authors, in particular, complained about the use of pirated books as training material. In various lawsuits, companies including OpenAI, Microsoft, Meta, and NVIDIA are accused of obtaining books from ‘pirate’ sources, including the controversial Books3 database and shadow library LibGen.

Meta Acknowledges ‘Pirate’ Sourcing Early On

One of the most intriguing cases, especially for those interested in the piracy angle, is the class action lawsuit filed by authors including Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, and Christopher Golden. The authors accuse Meta of using their work without permission.

While this may sound problematic to some, Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta didn’t beat around the bush. More than a year ago the company admitted that unofficial sources, comprised of pirated content, were used as training input.

Crucially, however, Meta denied the copyright infringement allegations, noting that it would rely on a fair use defense, at least in part.

“To the extent that Meta made any unauthorized copies of any Plaintiffs’ registered copyrighted works, such copies constitute fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107,” Meta said in its early response.

A Spotlight on Meta’s Torrenting Activity

The fair use defense will be central in many AI copyright infringement lawsuits. AI companies generally believe that use of ‘public’ data as training inputs is justified. They characterize the use as transformative and argue that it doesn’t compete with the original market for these works.

Whether that is indeed the case is a question that may ultimately end up at the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, however, rightsholders in this lawsuit have raised additional allegations of copyright infringement.

A few weeks ago, the plaintiffs asked for permission to submit a third amended complaint. After uncovering Meta’s use of BitTorrent to source copyright-infringing training data from pirate shadow library, LibGen, the request was justified, they argued.

Specifically, the authors say that Meta willingly used BitTorrent to download pirated books from LibGen, knowing that was legally problematic. As a result, Meta allegedly shared copies of these books with other people, as is common with the use of BitTorrent.

“By downloading through the bit torrent protocol, Meta knew it was facilitating further copyright infringement by acting as a distribution point for other users of pirated books,” the amended complaint notes.

“Put another way, by opting to use a bit torrent system to download LibGen’s voluminous collection of pirated books, Meta ‘seeded’ pirated books to other users worldwide.”

Court Greenlights Torrent Piracy Probe

Meta believed that the allegations weren’t sufficiently new to warrant an update to the complaint. The company argued that it was already a well-known fact that it used books from these third-party sources, including LibGen.

However, the authors maintained that the ‘torrent’ angle is novel and important enough to warrant an update. Last week, United States District Judge Vince Chhabria agreed, allowing the introduction of these new allegations.

In addition to greenlighting the amended complaint, the Judge also allowed the authors to conduct further testimony on the “seeding” angle.

“[E]vidence about seeding is relevant to the existing claim because it is potentially relevant to the plaintiffs’ assertion of willful infringement or to Meta’s fair use defense,” Judge Chhabria wrote last week.

Authors Want Meta’s Torrent Client Logs and Seeding Data

With the court recognizing the relevance of Meta’s torrenting activity, the plaintiffs requested reconsideration of an earlier order, where discovery on BitTorrent-related matters was denied.

Through a filing submitted last Wednesday, the plaintiffs hope to compel Meta to produce its BitTorrent logs and settings, including peer lists and seeding data.

“The Order denied Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of torrenting data, including Meta’s BitTorrent client, application logs, and peer lists. This data will evidence how much content Meta torrented from shadow libraries and how much it seeded to third parties as a host of this stolen IP,” they write.

While archiving lists of seeders is not a typical feature for a torrent client, the authors are requesting Meta to disclose any relevant data.

In addition, they also want the court to reconsider its ruling regarding the crime-fraud exception. That’s important, they suggest, as Meta’s legal counsel was allegedly involved in matters related to torrenting.

“Meta, with the involvement of in-house counsel, decided to obtain copyrighted works without permission from online databases of copyrighted works that ‘we know to be pirated, such as LibGen’, they write.

The authors allege that this involved “seeding” files and that Meta attempted to “conceal its actions” by limiting the amount of data shared with the public. One Meta employee also asked for guidance, as “torrenting from a corporate laptop doesn’t feel right .”

Meta as Distributor

With the addition of a torrent angle, the amended complaint adds a new element to the case. One that could potentially be crucial, particularly for the fair use defense.

The plaintiffs now accuse Meta of operating as a distributor of the pirated works. While that has little to do with how the works were used to train AI, it’s a copyright claim, nonetheless, and one that might be harder to defend as fair use.

Whether this will substantially change the case has yet to be seen, but it’s certainly fuel for legal fireworks. That said, these torrent allegations are just a small fraction of the case, which will be fought tooth and nail by both sides.

—

A copy of the plaintiffs’motion for relief from the non-dispositive pretrial order submitted on January 15, is available here (pdf) . A copy of the third-amended complaint can be found here (pdf)

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

Over the past two years, AI development has progressed at a rapid pace.

This includes large language models, which are typically trained on broad datasets of texts; the more, the better.

When AI hit the mainstream, it became apparent that many rightsholders had concerns over the unauthorized use of their copyright works. Creatives including photographers, artists, musicians, journalists, and authors, responded by filed copyright infringement lawsuits to protect their rights.

Book authors, in particular, complained about the use of pirated books as training material. In various lawsuits, companies including OpenAI, Microsoft, Meta, and NVIDIA are accused of obtaining books from ‘pirate’ sources, including the controversial Books3 database and shadow library LibGen.

Meta Acknowledges ‘Pirate’ Sourcing Early On

One of the most intriguing cases, especially for those interested in the piracy angle, is the class action lawsuit filed by authors including Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, and Christopher Golden. The authors accuse Meta of using their work without permission.

While this may sound problematic to some, Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta didn’t beat around the bush. More than a year ago the company admitted that unofficial sources, comprised of pirated content, were used as training input.

Crucially, however, Meta denied the copyright infringement allegations, noting that it would rely on a fair use defense, at least in part.

“To the extent that Meta made any unauthorized copies of any Plaintiffs’ registered copyrighted works, such copies constitute fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107,” Meta said in its early response.

A Spotlight on Meta’s Torrenting Activity

The fair use defense will be central in many AI copyright infringement lawsuits. AI companies generally believe that use of ‘public’ data as training inputs is justified. They characterize the use as transformative and argue that it doesn’t compete with the original market for these works.

Whether that is indeed the case is a question that may ultimately end up at the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, however, rightsholders in this lawsuit have raised additional allegations of copyright infringement.

A few weeks ago, the plaintiffs asked for permission to submit a third amended complaint. After uncovering Meta’s use of BitTorrent to source copyright-infringing training data from pirate shadow library, LibGen, the request was justified, they argued.

Specifically, the authors say that Meta willingly used BitTorrent to download pirated books from LibGen, knowing that was legally problematic. As a result, Meta allegedly shared copies of these books with other people, as is common with the use of BitTorrent.

“By downloading through the bit torrent protocol, Meta knew it was facilitating further copyright infringement by acting as a distribution point for other users of pirated books,” the amended complaint notes.

“Put another way, by opting to use a bit torrent system to download LibGen’s voluminous collection of pirated books, Meta ‘seeded’ pirated books to other users worldwide.”

Court Greenlights Torrent Piracy Probe

Meta believed that the allegations weren’t sufficiently new to warrant an update to the complaint. The company argued that it was already a well-known fact that it used books from these third-party sources, including LibGen.

However, the authors maintained that the ‘torrent’ angle is novel and important enough to warrant an update. Last week, United States District Judge Vince Chhabria agreed, allowing the introduction of these new allegations.

In addition to greenlighting the amended complaint, the Judge also allowed the authors to conduct further testimony on the “seeding” angle.

“[E]vidence about seeding is relevant to the existing claim because it is potentially relevant to the plaintiffs’ assertion of willful infringement or to Meta’s fair use defense,” Judge Chhabria wrote last week.

Authors Want Meta’s Torrent Client Logs and Seeding Data

With the court recognizing the relevance of Meta’s torrenting activity, the plaintiffs requested reconsideration of an earlier order, where discovery on BitTorrent-related matters was denied.

Through a filing submitted last Wednesday, the plaintiffs hope to compel Meta to produce its BitTorrent logs and settings, including peer lists and seeding data.

“The Order denied Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of torrenting data, including Meta’s BitTorrent client, application logs, and peer lists. This data will evidence how much content Meta torrented from shadow libraries and how much it seeded to third parties as a host of this stolen IP,” they write.

While archiving lists of seeders is not a typical feature for a torrent client, the authors are requesting Meta to disclose any relevant data.

In addition, they also want the court to reconsider its ruling regarding the crime-fraud exception. That’s important, they suggest, as Meta’s legal counsel was allegedly involved in matters related to torrenting.

“Meta, with the involvement of in-house counsel, decided to obtain copyrighted works without permission from online databases of copyrighted works that ‘we know to be pirated, such as LibGen’, they write.

The authors allege that this involved “seeding” files and that Meta attempted to “conceal its actions” by limiting the amount of data shared with the public. One Meta employee also asked for guidance, as “torrenting from a corporate laptop doesn’t feel right .”

Meta as Distributor

With the addition of a torrent angle, the amended complaint adds a new element to the case. One that could potentially be crucial, particularly for the fair use defense.

The plaintiffs now accuse Meta of operating as a distributor of the pirated works. While that has little to do with how the works were used to train AI, it’s a copyright claim, nonetheless, and one that might be harder to defend as fair use.

Whether this will substantially change the case has yet to be seen, but it’s certainly fuel for legal fireworks. That said, these torrent allegations are just a small fraction of the case, which will be fought tooth and nail by both sides.

—

A copy of the plaintiffs’motion for relief from the non-dispositive pretrial order submitted on January 15, is available here (pdf) . A copy of the third-amended complaint can be found here (pdf)

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

Over the past two years, AI development has progressed at a rapid pace.

This includes large language models, which are typically trained on broad datasets of texts; the more, the better.

When AI hit the mainstream, it became apparent that many rightsholders had concerns over the unauthorized use of their copyright works. Creatives including photographers, artists, musicians, journalists, and authors, responded by filed copyright infringement lawsuits to protect their rights.

Book authors, in particular, complained about the use of pirated books as training material. In various lawsuits, companies including OpenAI, Microsoft, Meta, and NVIDIA are accused of obtaining books from ‘pirate’ sources, including the controversial Books3 database and shadow library LibGen.

Meta Acknowledges ‘Pirate’ Sourcing Early On

One of the most intriguing cases, especially for those interested in the piracy angle, is the class action lawsuit filed by authors including Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, and Christopher Golden. The authors accuse Meta of using their work without permission.

While this may sound problematic to some, Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta didn’t beat around the bush. More than a year ago the company admitted that unofficial sources, comprised of pirated content, were used as training input.

Crucially, however, Meta denied the copyright infringement allegations, noting that it would rely on a fair use defense, at least in part.

“To the extent that Meta made any unauthorized copies of any Plaintiffs’ registered copyrighted works, such copies constitute fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107,” Meta said in its early response.

A Spotlight on Meta’s Torrenting Activity

The fair use defense will be central in many AI copyright infringement lawsuits. AI companies generally believe that use of ‘public’ data as training inputs is justified. They characterize the use as transformative and argue that it doesn’t compete with the original market for these works.

Whether that is indeed the case is a question that may ultimately end up at the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, however, rightsholders in this lawsuit have raised additional allegations of copyright infringement.

A few weeks ago, the plaintiffs asked for permission to submit a third amended complaint. After uncovering Meta’s use of BitTorrent to source copyright-infringing training data from pirate shadow library, LibGen, the request was justified, they argued.

Specifically, the authors say that Meta willingly used BitTorrent to download pirated books from LibGen, knowing that was legally problematic. As a result, Meta allegedly shared copies of these books with other people, as is common with the use of BitTorrent.

“By downloading through the bit torrent protocol, Meta knew it was facilitating further copyright infringement by acting as a distribution point for other users of pirated books,” the amended complaint notes.

“Put another way, by opting to use a bit torrent system to download LibGen’s voluminous collection of pirated books, Meta ‘seeded’ pirated books to other users worldwide.”

Court Greenlights Torrent Piracy Probe

Meta believed that the allegations weren’t sufficiently new to warrant an update to the complaint. The company argued that it was already a well-known fact that it used books from these third-party sources, including LibGen.

However, the authors maintained that the ‘torrent’ angle is novel and important enough to warrant an update. Last week, United States District Judge Vince Chhabria agreed, allowing the introduction of these new allegations.

In addition to greenlighting the amended complaint, the Judge also allowed the authors to conduct further testimony on the “seeding” angle.

“[E]vidence about seeding is relevant to the existing claim because it is potentially relevant to the plaintiffs’ assertion of willful infringement or to Meta’s fair use defense,” Judge Chhabria wrote last week.

Authors Want Meta’s Torrent Client Logs and Seeding Data

With the court recognizing the relevance of Meta’s torrenting activity, the plaintiffs requested reconsideration of an earlier order, where discovery on BitTorrent-related matters was denied.

Through a filing submitted last Wednesday, the plaintiffs hope to compel Meta to produce its BitTorrent logs and settings, including peer lists and seeding data.

“The Order denied Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of torrenting data, including Meta’s BitTorrent client, application logs, and peer lists. This data will evidence how much content Meta torrented from shadow libraries and how much it seeded to third parties as a host of this stolen IP,” they write.

While archiving lists of seeders is not a typical feature for a torrent client, the authors are requesting Meta to disclose any relevant data.

In addition, they also want the court to reconsider its ruling regarding the crime-fraud exception. That’s important, they suggest, as Meta’s legal counsel was allegedly involved in matters related to torrenting.

“Meta, with the involvement of in-house counsel, decided to obtain copyrighted works without permission from online databases of copyrighted works that ‘we know to be pirated, such as LibGen’, they write.

The authors allege that this involved “seeding” files and that Meta attempted to “conceal its actions” by limiting the amount of data shared with the public. One Meta employee also asked for guidance, as “torrenting from a corporate laptop doesn’t feel right .”

Meta as Distributor

With the addition of a torrent angle, the amended complaint adds a new element to the case. One that could potentially be crucial, particularly for the fair use defense.

The plaintiffs now accuse Meta of operating as a distributor of the pirated works. While that has little to do with how the works were used to train AI, it’s a copyright claim, nonetheless, and one that might be harder to defend as fair use.

Whether this will substantially change the case has yet to be seen, but it’s certainly fuel for legal fireworks. That said, these torrent allegations are just a small fraction of the case, which will be fought tooth and nail by both sides.

—

A copy of the plaintiffs’motion for relief from the non-dispositive pretrial order submitted on January 15, is available here (pdf) . A copy of the third-amended complaint can be found here (pdf)

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