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

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

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

‘Thousands of Pirate Downloads’

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

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

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

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

Social Media Likes

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

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

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

Defendant Wants Case Dismissed

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

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

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

Court: Likes Are Evidence, Case Continues

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

Late 2022, several of the world’s largest music companies including Warner Bros. and Sony Music prevailed in their lawsuit against Internet provider Grande Communications.

The record labels accused the Astound-owned ISP of not doing enough to stop pirating subscribers. Specifically, they alleged that the company failed to terminate repeat infringers.

A Texas federal jury found Grande guilty of willful contributory copyright infringement, and the ISP was ordered to pay $47 million in damages .

The copyright infringement verdict was confirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals but the lower court’s decision on how damages should be calculated was overturned. A new trial will determine the appropriate amount but in the meantime, Grande continues to protest the liability ruling.

Grande Petitions Supreme Court

Earlier this year, Grande asked the Supreme Court to intervene. The Internet provider argued that current law lacks clear standards for handling copyright infringement notices or terminating subscriber accounts.

The petition asked the Supreme Court to answer two key questions, which Grande phrased as follows:

“Whether an ISP is liable for contributory copyright infringement by (i) providing content-neutral internet access to the general public and (ii) failing to terminate that access after receiving two third-party notices alleging someone at a customer’s IP address has infringed.”

Assuming that third-party notices are valid, other questions also remain unanswered. For example, is it fair to disconnect subscribers from vital services? How many notices should trigger a disconnection when ISPs receive millions of them? And should subscribers be protected in any way?

Grande essentially argues that the DMCA, as it’s written, is too ambiguous to handle the present repeat infringer conundrum. Ideally, the law should be clarified but for now it hopes that the court can provide additional clarity.

Music Companies: Rampant Infringement

Last week, the music companies responded to Grande’s argument. In an opposition brief, they note that the questions posed by the ISP are “utterly divorced from reality” and not worth the Court’s attention.

The brief counters the ISP’s focus on subscribers for which it received two copyright infringement notices, noting that the ISP had no intention of disconnecting any subscribers, no matter how many notices they received.

The music companies contend that Grande’s situation is not a symptom of confusing laws, but a consequence of its own “egregious” policies.

“In truth, Grande had a policy to never terminate service to a customer for engaging in copyright infringement,” the music companies write.

“The trial record demonstrated that Grande knew that dozens of its users infringed more than 1,000 times—and one infringed nearly 14,000 times— annually, yet Grande did nothing in response.”

The music companies stress that Grande had no problem terminating subscribers who didn’t pay their bills. However, when rightsholders repeatedly complained about pirating subscribers, it took no action.

The DMCA clearly states that ISPs must adopt and implement a repeat infringer policy to benefit from safe harbor protection. However, according to the music companies, Grande’s policy was to keep servicing these subscribers instead.

Supreme Court or Congress?

All in all, the plaintiffs see no reason for the Supreme Court to take on this case. If Grande believes that the DMCA safe harbor definitions should be changed, it should petition lawmakers, the music companies add.

“If Grande thinks the safe harbor should be radically expanded to allow the kind of shocking disregard for copyrights it displayed, it should take that up with Congress, not this Court.”

After hearing the positions of both sides, it is now up to the Supreme Court to decide whether it will take on this case or not.

Interestingly, this is not the only repeat infringer case currently under review. Last year, Cox Communications filed a similar petition , warning that the current situation could have devastating consequences for the ISP industry and the public.

The Supreme Court previously signaled interest in the issue. While it’s yet to accept the petition, the Court requested the U.S. Solicitor General’s views, to hear what the Government thinks about the matter.

—

A copy of the music companies’ opposition brief filed at the U.S. Supreme Court is available here (pdf)

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

On Tuesday, 52-year-old Grenier traveled from Aruba, an island off the coast of Venezuela, to Canada’s Montreal airport.

Law enforcement officers of the Sûreté du Québec (SQ – Quebec Provincial Police) escorted Grenier to the SQ police station in Shawinigan. Police had carried out an operation in February 2024 which targeted Grenier and several individuals linked to the current prosecution. Grenier, who was outside Canada at the time, avoided arrest and remained at large for more than a year.

Court Hears Allegations Concerning Signal Theft and Pirate IPTV

The warrant for Grenier’s arrest was issued as part of an investigation into the illegal acquisition and sale of TV channels distributed by Canada’s leading telecoms companies. Bell, Rogers, and Quebecor claimed their losses ran to several million Canadian dollars.

Grenier appeared at the Trois-Rivières courthouse on Wednesday. The prosecution alleges that devices supplied by Grenier provided customers with access to thousands of television channels, most if not all pirated, for a low subscription price of ~CAD$25.00 per month (US$18.00).

The authorities accuse Grenier of operating a company which in turn owned pirate IPTV service Arubox TV. As per our 2023 report , Grenier made no secret of his involvement in the IPTV market.

Police say that Arubox TV and a linked service called Stocker IPTV provided thousands of customers, 7,000 in Quebec alone, with illegal access to more than 3,500 pirated TV channels.

Grenier faces ten charges linked to the theft of telecommunications services, including conspiracy, fraud, theft, and money laundering. The alleged offenses took place between June 2020 and February 2024, generating annual profits of at least CAD$2 million (US$14m) according to Sûreté du Québec estimates.

• Conspiracy to defraud Bell, Rogers and Quebecor
• Theft of telecommunications services
• Production of devices linked to illegal signal access
• Trafficking in devices linked to illegal signal access
• Sale of devices linked to illegal signal access
• Trafficking in property obtained by crime
• Theft of more than CAD$5,000
• Laundering proceeds of crime
• Transfer of money linked to crime in Canada with intent to conceal/convert
• Computer data ‘mischief’

Other charges concern alleged trafficking in the prescription drugs Sildenfil and Tadalafil.

Seven Co-Defendants

Grenier will remain in custody until his next court appearance. The prosecution argued against Grenier’s release and insisted that he should face trial by jury, rather than by judge alone. Grenier’s co-defendants, several of whom previously appeared in court following their arrests in 2024, have already opted for a trial by jury.

A total of seven people stand accused of various crimes in the same case.

Le Nouvelliste identifies the co-defendants as follows:

• Danick Rouleau, 39, of Saint-Eustache (alleged Stocker IPTV operator)
• Sarah-Maude Grenier, 25, of Brownsburg-Chatham
• Marie-Ève ​​Poliquin Karaguioules, 26, of Saint-Eustache
• Éric Laforge, 44, of Gatineau
• Daniel Perreault-Marcotte, 38, of Saint-Henri
• Patrick Cyr, 49, of Longueuil
• Christian Sabourin, 60, of Princeville

Are Customers at Risk of Prosecution?

While police have offered assurances that customers are not targets in the current criminal investigation, possession of a pirate device could be a criminal offense in its own right. Police are therefore advising affected customers to dispose of their pirate devices at recycling centers.

The IPTV services in question are known to have been installed on relative expensive Formuler set-top boxes. When fresh out of their packaging, these Android-based devices are perfectly legal; only the subsequent configuration for piracy purposes changes that.

A full and properly executed factory reset will remove the offending configuration, help the environment, and via legal apps installed from Google Play, provide access to legal streaming services.

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

Fmovies first appeared online in 2016 and rapidly escalated into a severe headache for Hollywood as an incredibly resilient pirate operation.

Despite early intelligence from the MPA ‘s anti-piracy arm, ACE, pinpointing the piracy ring to Vietnam, shutting down the operation required countless hours of enforcement work and significant diplomatic efforts .

This eventually paid off last year, when Fmovies and its various sister sites, good for more than 300 million monthly visits , started to crumble. A few weeks later, ACE formally confirmed that it helped Vietnamese authorities to shut down the world’s largest piracy ring.

“The takedown of Fmovies is a stunning victory for casts, crews, writers, directors, studios, and the creative community across the globe,” MPA CEO Charles Rivkin said at the time.

Fmovies Prosecution of Phan and Nguyen

The true scope of the takedown operation may never be revealed, but it was clear that getting to this point had not been easy. The same was true for the aftermath, including the prosecution in Vietnam of two Fmovies operators; the alleged mastermind Phan Thành Công, and accomplice Nguyen Tuan Anh.

According to local authorities, the defendants came up with the Fmovies plan in 2015, after meeting at Aptech vocational school. After their arrests, both men confessed in full to their involvement with the criminal piracy ring that reportedly generated around $400,000 in ad revenue over the years.

Follow-up paperwork revealed that Phan, the lead programmer and manager, took most of the spoils, leaving Nguyen, responsible for the sites’ content, with roughly 10% of the total profits.

With these confessions , subsequent convictions seemed almost certain. However, it now transpires that this didn’t provide the ending Hollywood had hoped for.

Fmovies Defendants Dodge Prison

While no new details concerning the prosecution have appeared this year, information published in a US Trade Representative (USTR) report suggested that the two Fmovies defendants were sentenced recently. Due to the slightly odd phrasing and limited detail, we were hesitant to report immediately, but after an inquiry to the MPA, we can now confirm that the information is correct.

Both Fmovies defendants received suspended prison sentences for their roles in the Fmovies piracy ring. This means that, similar to previous convictions in Vietnam, they won’t have to serve any prison time, provided that they don’t break the law going forward.

Sentencing details are not yet public, and it’s unknown whether the men are required to pay damages. The legal paperwork previously showed that they already repaid the financial “benefit” received from their crimes, which amounted to VND 406 million (approx. $15,900 total) for 30 films.

This relatively low amount, paired with the suspended sentences, must come as a disappointment to those who worked for several years to shut down the Fmovies piracy empire.

It also explains why the USTR urged Vietnam to seek prison sentences and higher monetary fines in piracy related cases going forward.

“In order to have a deterrent effect, Vietnam enforcement authorities should […] consider seeking prison sentences, monetary fines, and other criminal penalties at the higher levels that are available under Vietnamese law, in order to reflect the immense damage caused to copyright holders by these copyright infringement operations.”

Stunning Silence

The Fmovies case was watched closely by Hollywood and the U.S. authorities that also played a role in the crackdown. While the original websites remain offline today, the perceived leniency of the sentences will likely come as a major disappointment.

Thus far, there haven’t been any public statements on the sentencing; the silence speaks volumes. After securing a “stunning victory” that made headlines all over the world, the only convictions have passed quietly by.

To the best of our knowledge, the Vietnamese authorities haven’t publicly mentioned the prosecution’s outcome either. The only thing we know is that it took place more than a week ago, before the USTR report came out.

That same USTR report, which strongly urges Vietnam to take tougher action against remaining pirate sites and services, also indicates that this is a diplomatically sensitive subject. Paired with the disappointing outcome for rightsholders, this may explain the stunning silence.

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

As pirate IPTV services have continued to grow in recent years, TV broadcasters and distributors have intensified their efforts to combat piracy.

Pay TV provider DISH Network , in tandem with the International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy ( IBCAP ), has been particularly active on this front.

Last month, DISH filed a lawsuit against the as-yet unidentified operators of the popular ‘pirate’ streaming services Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV in a Texas federal court. This case remains pending, but is boosted by a new lawsuit targeting a hosting provider that’s allegedly linked to these and other pirate IPTV services.

DISH Sues Hosting Service Innetra

In a lawsuit filed at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California this week, DISH accuses the UK company ‘Innetra PC’ of aiding widespread copyright infringement, while largely ignoring takedown requests.

The complaint is based on evidence gathered by IBCAP. It alleges that Innetra provides essential server and network infrastructure that enables numerous “Pirate Services” to illegally stream copyrighted content to users in the United States. This includes 22 Arabic, Hindi, and Bangla language TV channels, for which DISH holds the U.S. transmission rights.

“The scale of the Pirate Services’ direct infringement of the Works is extensive. The Pirate Services that transmitted linear streams of the Channels that aired the Works often did so 24 hours per day and 7 days per week, in some cases for several years,” the complaint reads.

Hosting companies are not automatically liable for the actions of their customers. In this case, however, DISH notes that Innetra can’t rely on safe harbor protection as it allegedly failed to properly respond to copyright infringement notices.

“Innetra possessed the means to take simple measures to stop the infringement – such as removing or disabling the infringing streams or terminating the accounts of the Pirate Services due to their repeated infringement – yet Innetra refused to take such measures, choosing instead to continue profiting from the Pirate Services’ direct infringement.”

‘DMCA Notices Ignored’

While Innetra is incorporated in the UK, DISH alleges that the company targeted its services toward the United States as well. This includes references to the DMCA, which is the only copyright law mentioned on its website.

The complaint further notes that the hosting provider appealed to customers through its alleged noncompliance with DMCA takedown notices, which is a much sought after policy by prospective pirate customers.

“Innetra deliberately attracts streaming services that violate United States copyright law, such as the Pirates Services, by promoting a policy designed to shield customers from Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedowns, and by keeping infringing activities online,” DISH writes.

The rightsholder reportedly sent hundreds of infringement notices to the hosting company, identifying specific infringing activities, IP addresses, and URLs. It only received a response to one of these, with Innetra responding that it would not comply.

Drawing in Pirates

While copyright infringement is prohibited by Innetra’s acceptable use policy, DISH alleges that the reality was different. The TV company believes that the host’s alleged DMCA-ignore policy acted as a draw for pirate IPTV services

“[T]he Pirate Services were drawn to Innetra’s servers and network because it did not stop their infringement, and the Pirate Services perceived Innetra’s servers and network as a place where infringement of the Works was tolerated because Innetra advertised them as such and many other Pirate Services did just that.”

The legal paperwork includes a list of allegedly infringing services, URLS and IP addresses that were linked to Innetra’s infrastructure. These include the aforementioned Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV, as well as Honeybee, Xtremehd, and Caliptostreams.

There is no mention of a DMCA ignore policy on Innetra’s website, but the company’s FAQ mentions that it protects customers from illegitimate DMCA claims .

$25 Million in Damages

All in all, DISH holds Innetra liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. The same applies to the company’s director, Elna Paulette Belle, who is personally listed as a defendant in the case.

The lawsuit lists 171 copyrighted works and DISH requests the maximum statutory damages for all alleged infringement, bringing the potential damages to $25,650,000.

This isn’t the first time that DISH has targeted an intermediary in a piracy-related lawsuit. The company previously sued UK-based CDN company DataCamp, which eventually settled for $3 million . In addition, there’s a lawsuit pending against Ukrainian hosting provider Virtual Systems .

Responding to the lawsuit, IBCAP boss Chris Kuelling says that the legal efforts underscore its commitment to hold non-compliant CDNs and hosting providers accountable. At the same time, he issues a stark warning to other companies in the same business.

“Innetra blatantly disregarded IBCAP’s notices to its detriment – if you are a hosting provider or CDN and disregard our repeated notices, there is a strong chance you will be sued for copyright infringement.”

—

A copy of the DISH Network complaint, filed yesterday at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is available here (pdf) .

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

Last September, Apple removed popular music streaming app Musi from its App Store, affecting millions of users.

Apple’s action didn’t come as a complete surprise. Music industry groups had been trying to take Musi down for months, branding it a ‘parasitic’ app that skirts the rules.

Delisting from the App Store put the future of Musi directly at risk. The company initially hoped to resolve the matter with Apple behind closed doors, but since the tech giant was unwilling to reverse its decision, Musi took the matter to court.

“Backchannel Scheme”

Musi claimed that the App Store removal was the result of “backroom conversations” between Apple and key music industry players. The app developer alleged this was an “unfair” and “tainted” removal process designed to put it out of business.

Musi hoped for a quick reinstatement and requested a preliminary injunction to put the app back in the App Store while the lawsuit was pending. That attempt failed, however.

In January, a California federal court denied the preliminary injunction, ruling that Apple did not act unreasonably or in bad faith when it removed the app following complaints from music industry players and YouTube.

The order meant that the case would continue without Musi being available in the App Store. And a new filing submitted by Apple, shows that the company has absolutely no intention to change its mind.

Apple Returns Fire

In a motion for sanctions filed yesterday at the California court, Apple requests sanctions against Musi for false or misleading allegations, which include the remarks concerning the “backchannel scheme”.

According to Apple, discovery in this case clearly revealed that there were no backroom deals but Musi nonetheless included these claims in its amended complaint.

“[D]iscovery thoroughly disproved Musi’s baseless conspiracy theory that Apple schemed to eliminate the Musi app from the App Store to benefit ‘friends’ in the music industry,” Apple notes.

“To make matters worse, Musi attempted to give its falsehoods a veneer of truth by provisionally redacting many allegations and misrepresenting to the Court that those allegations reflected information Apple produced in discovery.”

These alleged misrepresentations are sanctionable, Apple argues. The tech giant reiterates that it received numerous complaints about Musi from various parties and dismisses the notion of a backchannel scheme.

Apple: ‘Musi Impersonated UMG’

Adding to the purported misrepresentations in the complaint, Apple adds further color by alleging that Musi previously impersonated UMG executive Jason Miller, to get reinstated in the App Store.

“Apple previously removed Musi’s app from the App Store and Musi only regained access in 2020 by fraudulently impersonating a complainant,” Apple writes.

Exhibits shared by Apple show that Musi informed Apple that a complaint from UMG was resolved, citing communications with jasonmiller@umusic.solar-secure.com. Musi founder Aaron Wojnowski forwarded this email chain to Apple, which seemingly confirmed this.

Follow-up communications between Apple and Universal Music painted a different picture. UMG informed Apple that the email was “fraudulent,” that Jason Miller had no record of sending it, and the email address used was not a UMG address.

“It appears that the app developer created a false email to misrepresent compliance on behalf of Universal. Therefore, the claim should not be closed and the app should be removed immediately,” UMG explained at the time.

Making matters worse, in July 2020 UMG informed Apple of another instance where the same fraudulent ‘Jason Miller’ email address was allegedly used to file a false copyright claim against a different app, Yokee.

Despite the alleged impersonation, Musi remained available in the App Store until last year. However, according to Apple, the alleged impersonation is further evidence of a pattern of dishonesty, which warrants sanctions.

It is now up to the court to review the evidence and decide whether it proves that Musi did indeed cross the line and if sanctions are warranted. Meanwhile, Apple’s motion to dismiss the entire case also remains pending.

—-

A copy of Apple’s memorandum supporting its motion for sanctions, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is available here (pdf)

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

In recent years, music and movie companies have filed several lawsuits against U.S. Internet providers, for failing to take action against pirating subscribers.

One of the main allegations is that ISPs fail to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers in “appropriate circumstances”, as the DMCA requires.

These lawsuits resulted in multi-million dollar judgments against Cox and Grande. Meanwhile, more companies are at risk too, including Frontier Communications, which emerged from bankruptcy four years ago.

Frontier vs. Movie and Music Companies

Frontier is fighting not one, but two legal battles. After the company was sued by several prominent record labels including UMG, Sony Music and Warner Music, a group of independent film companies filed a similar lawsuit.

Progress was slow in both cases but after the court denied Frontier’s motions to dismiss last year, the parties began preparing for a trial starting next week.

With damages that could run to hundreds of millions of dollars, the stakes are high. The music companies alone listed 7,758 sound recordings; based on the statutory maximum of $150,000 per willfully infringed work, that could translate to over $1 billion in damages.

The movie and music company plaintiffs separately alleged that Frontier is secondarily liable for copyright infringement because it allegedly provided internet service to known repeat infringers.

The movie companies sought additional relief, most notably a request for an injunction that was bound to pique wider interest due to a site blocking component.

Pirate Site Blocking Measures (Shelved)

In a pretrial order published last week, the parties shared their contentions in advance of the scheduled trial at the New York Bankruptcy Court. The movie companies listed their site-blocking demand as one of the key questions to be answered.

The companies argued that the domains thepiratebay.org, 1337x.to, YTS.MX and (the currently offline ) torrentgalaxy.to, should be blocked.

“MCCs further request the Court grant an injunction ordering Frontier to terminate accounts of customers that have repeatedly infringed MCCs’ Works and block access on the domain name service (‘DNS’) level of foreign piracy websites thepiratebay.org, 1337x.to, YTS.MX and torrentgalaxy.to and any of their proxy websites,” the pretrial order reads.

If granted and carried through to conclusion, this would’ve been the first time that a major U.S. Internet provider had blocked pirate sites. However, not long after the joint pretrial order was published, Frontier and the movie companies announced that they were aiming to settle the case.

Movie Companies and Frontier Settle “In Principle”

Last Friday, the parties submitted a joint notice of settlement to the court, mentioning that a settlement is being finalized. As a result, the movie companies asked to be excused from the trial next week.

“Parties have arrived at a settlement in principle, which the Parties are working quickly to document and finalize. Accordingly, the Parties request that the Court excuse MCCs from participating in the trial […] to give the Parties an opportunity to effectuate their settlement and file a stipulation for dismissal,” the update reads.

The court has yet to grant this request, but it shows that the movie companies seem unlikely to participate in the trial. In fact, two of the movie companies have already finalized their settlement.

This significantly narrows the scope, since the trial will focus on the music company claims alone. Since the movie companies requested the site blocking injunctions, this request will naturally be off the table as well.

Music Companies go to Trial with Frontier

Regardless of the outcome, the music companies’ claims remain, and Frontier will have to put up a defense at trial, of which the company shared a glimpse in the pretrial order.

Among other things, the ISP plans to argue that it lacked sufficient knowledge of the infringements based on the notices sent by copyright holders. Frontier will further point out that it did not encourage or materially contribute to any infringement, emphasizing the substantial non-infringing uses of its service.

The ISP will also highlight its repeat infringer policy, which included warnings and termination of accounts when appropriate. It will argue that the policy should be sufficient for the ISP to benefit from the DMCA’s safe harbor provision.

All in all, it’s clear that the scope of the trial will be significantly reduced if the movie companies and Frontier settle. That said, with a billion dollars in potential damages still in play, significant risk remains.

—

A copy of the joint pretrial order, submitted to the New York Bankruptcy Court, is available here (pdf) . The joint notice of settlement can be found here (pdf) .

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

For major companies like Nintendo, tackling online piracy isn’t just about punishing individual infringers; it’s about strategic deterrence.

Filing lawsuits against casual gamers who may have made an isolated mistake is not a good look and could potentially backfire. Nintendo understands that and carefully picks its battles.

The case against Jesse Keighin, better known under his gaming handle “EveryGameGuru”, exemplifies this approach. Filed in a Colorado federal court last November, Nintendo’s complaint lists many alleged wrongdoings, including pre-release game streaming using pirated ROMs and distribution of circumvention tools.

Add in the public exposure through streaming platforms such as YouTube, Discord, and Twitch, and it’s not difficult to see why Nintendo singled out this defendant.

Absent and Undeterred Defendant

Facing a lawsuit from a multibillion-dollar company can be a frightening prospect. In this case, however, the defendant seemed undeterred, based on public messages that appeared online.

Instead of trying to avoid a legal disaster, Keighin apparently went on the offensive, with no sign of giving in . Quite the contrary.

“You might run a corporation. I run the streets,” Keighin wrote to Nintendo’s legal team at some point, warning that they should have done more research on him before taking action.

The defendant reportedly destroyed evidence and evaded Nintendo’s attempts to serve him personally. Due to these complications, the court eventually allowed service via email and the home addresses of his mother, grandmother, and partner.

When that didn’t yield a response in court either, the game giant requested an entry of default, so it could move the case forward without an official defense.

Nintendo Seeks Default Judgment

In a motion for default judgment, Nintendo explains that the defendant willfully streamed pirated copies of pre-release games to his followers. These streams were tagged as “EARLY RELEASE” or “FIRST LOOK,” but without authorization from Nintendo.

“At least fifty times in the last two years, Defendant streamed gameplay of pirated copies of at least ten different Nintendo games—all before those titles were released,” Nintendo writes.

“By streaming games prior to their publication, Defendant normalizes and encourages prerelease piracy, signaling to viewers that they too should pirate and play the game now, without waiting for its release or paying for it.”

In addition to directly infringing the copyrights of games including “Mario & Luigi: Brothership”, the defendant also shared links to the Nintendo Switch emulators Ryujinx, Yuzu, Suyu, and Sudachi on social media. By doing so, Nintendo says he effectively trafficked in circumvention devices.

Nintendo also accuses Keighin of circumventing technical protection measures himself, in violation of the DMCA, as well as using hacked hardware to play pirated games.

“Defendant often used an emulator but also used a hacked Nintendo Switch, demonstrating that he decrypted and accessed without authorization the prerelease games he streamed,” Nintendo writes.

$17,500 and a Broad Injunction

The legal paperwork includes ten titles that the defendant allegedly infringed, willfully. In theory, this can lead to up to $1.5 million in statutory damages for copyright infringement alone, but the game company requests a substantially lower amount.

Here, Nintendo requests damages for only one of the ten games and says that $10,000 is an appropriate award. After ignoring previous warnings for close to two years, this should help deter future wrongdoings.

For circumvention of technological protection measures and trafficking in circumvention technology, the game giant requests damages of $5,000 and $2,500 respectively. This brings the total damages amount to $17,500.

In addition to the monetary damages, Nintendo also seeks a broad permanent injunction against Keighin, which would apply worldwide. If granted, this injunction will prohibit the defendant from any infringing activities going forward, including the use of emulators.

These restrictions apply to existing emulators such as Yuzu or Ryujinx, but also those not yet named. Similarly, the injunction would apply to existing Nintendo games and games that do not yet exist. Meanwhile, all infringing hardware and software need to be destroyed.

The court has yet to grant Nintendo’s motion, but it’s notable that the company has not requested the maximum amount in compensation. Instead, it hopes to send a deterrent message to Keighin and other alleged pirates, to stop pirating and streaming Nintendo games.

Whether this strategy will pay off remains to be seen. Thus far, “EveryGameGuru” hasn’t been very receptive to Nintendo’s outreach. That said, this legal action also puts others on notice that Nintendo doesn’t appreciate pre-release streams or advertising of ‘rogue’ emulators.

—

A copy of Nintendo’s motion for default judgment against Keighin, filed at the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado last Friday, is available here (pdf)

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

Anna’s Archive is a meta-search engine for shadow libraries that allows users to find pirated books and other related resources.

In late 2023, the search engine Anna’s Archive expanded its offering by making data from OCLC’s proprietary WorldCat database available online.

Anna’s Archive scraped several terabytes of data over the course of a year and published roughly 700 million unique records online, for free.

These records contain no copyrighted books or articles. However, they can help to create a to-do list of all missing shadow library content on the web, with the ultimate goal of making as much content publicly available as possible.

OCLC Sued Anna’s Archive

This ‘metadata’ heist was a massive breakthrough in the quest to archive as much published content as possible online. However, OCLC responded with a lawsuit filed at an Ohio federal court, accusing the site and its operators of hacking and demanding damages.

The non-profit says that it spent more than a million dollars responding to Anna’s Archive’s alleged hacking efforts. Even then, it couldn’t prevent the data from being released through a torrent.

Following the alleged hacking efforts, OCLC attempted to identify the perpetrators. The investigation led them to Seattle resident Maria Dolores A. Matienzo, the sole named defendant in the case.

The complaint mentioned that Matienzo describes herself as an “archivist” and uses the handle “anarchivist” on social media and Github. The defendant was allegedly employed as a software engineer at an AI startup and previously worked as a catalog librarian at a direct competitor of OCLC.

Maria A. Denies Involvement

Responding to the allegations in court, Matienzo denied any involvement with Anna’s Archive.

“I am not affiliated in any way with Anna’s Archive and had no involvement in the alleged hacking and/or scraping of data from WorldCat.org that was allegedly orchestrated and carried out by Anna’s Archive,” Matienzo wrote.

In a motion to dismiss , Matienzo’s attorney wrote that there is no “shred of evidence” that links the defendant to the search engine, let alone any of the alleged hacking or scraping efforts.

As the case progressed, no other defendants were identified. OCLC moved for a default judgment against the ‘unnamed’ operators, while Matienzo’s motion to dismiss was pending. Last month, however, an Ohio federal judge slammed on the brakes .

In a detailed order, Judge Watson expressed uncertainty about the legality of large-scale data scraping under state law.

Citing this uncertainty, the judge denied OCLC’s request for default judgment against Anna’s Archive and denied Matienzo’s motion to dismiss without prejudice, pending clarification from the Supreme Court of Ohio, to which several core legal questions were referred.

Key Defendant Dropped From Lawsuit

Disappointed by the decision, OCLC asked the court to reconsider its position. It also requested the only named defendant to be dropped from the case, to focus on obtaining a final judgment against Anna’s Archive, which could help to get the associated domain names blocked.

The Ohio federal court initially denied the request over procedural issues, after which OCLC and Matienzo filed a joint motion this week, asking the court to drop the defendant from the case.

“At this juncture of the proceedings, OCLC and Matienzo have reached an agreement that Matienzo be dropped from this action. As a result, OCLC no longer seeks relief from Matienzo in this action,” the joint motion reads.

This request has yet to be approved by the court but with agreement from both sides, that’s likely just a formality. And because the defendant will be dropped ‘with prejudice’, similar claims can’t be refiled against her at a later stage.

From the public filings, it appears that OCLC has no idea who the real operators of Anna’s Archive are. There sure are plenty of archivists named Anna , but ideally, they need something more than association by name.

Instant update: The motion to dismiss Matienzo from the case was granted .

—

A copy of the joint motion to drop defendant Maria Matienzo from the lawsuit, filed on Tuesday, is available here (pdf)

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