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

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

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

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

Nhentai Sued by Publisher for Widespread Piracy

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

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

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

Nhentai Seeks Dismissal and Anonymity

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

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

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

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

Nhentai Operators Ordered to Unveil Themselves

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

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

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

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

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

Dismissal Denied, Case Continues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

Adult entertainment company Flava Works specializes in gay media, mostly pornographic films and magazines featuring Black and Latino men.

Over the years, the company has built a reputation for aggressively pursuing legal action against individuals accused of sharing its copyrighted content, often via private torrent sites specializing in gay content. Flava is known for identifying ordinary downloaders and those who leak their content, presumably through use of unique identifiers embedded in official videos.

Many hundreds of alleged pirates have been targeted in these legal actions, including a Hollywood executive who fought back in court. After a retaliatory lawsuit was dropped, the case was eventually settled on undisclosed terms.

In other lawsuits, Flava clearly came out on top, including a damages claim of $1.5 million against a defendant who shared seven films.

Flava’s lawsuits appeared to slow down in recent years, but a new complaint filed at an Illinois district court shows that the production company continues to monitor pirates, including those in private communities.

Lawsuit Targets Alleged Leaker & 47 File-Sharers

The complaint by Flava Works Entertainment and affiliate Blatino Media, lists Canadian resident Nicolas G. as the main defendant. Allegedly a paid subscriber to the plaintiffs’ official websites, the defendant is said to have downloaded several films and then shared some of them on private torrent tracker GayTorrent.ru, which is also accessible at GayTor.rent.

Flava accuses the Canadian defendant of downloading copyrighted videos and distributing them on the torrent platform, in violation of its terms of service.

“Defendant [Nicolas G.] downloaded copyrighted videos of Flava Works as part of his paid memberships and, in violation of the terms and conditions of the paid sites, posted and distributed the aforesaid videos on other websites, including websites with peer-to-peer sharing and torrent technology,” the complaint reads.

The legal paperwork doesn’t specify how the main defendant was linked to the pirated videos, but it’s likely they contained embedded identifiers. Flava alleges that as a result of the unauthorized sharing, dozens of members of the private torrent site were able to download the pirated videos.

These downloaders, 47 in total, are listed as John Doe defendants. They’re currently identified only by their respective usernames, including ActorCA, Balloonboy82, Furiousd2023, TheMonitor72, and WarGod83. All face direct copyright infringement claims and a risk of substantial damages.

Millions in Damages

The complaint is brief and doesn’t include any details explaining how the defendants were tracked or identified. The main defendant likely had personal details linked to their paid Flava account, but what evidence exists to show that the alleged users of the site downloaded pirated films is unknown.

The scale of the damages claim is clear. For each of the 47 John Doe defendants the plaintiffs request $150,000 in statutory damages. The main defendant faces a significantly larger claim of $1,500,000, pushing the total damages claim to over $8 million.

Again, no reasons are provided to justify these amounts but $150,000 is the maximum available for copyright infringement of a single work. The lawsuit was filed with a list of 31 copyrighted works, but no details to show who shared what and when. It’s possible that more details will emerge as the case progresses.

All in all, the recent complaint shows that after more than a decade, Flava is still actively monitoring BitTorrent pirates. While new lawsuits are rare, they are not without consequence and should not be ignored. The fact that Flava’s name previously appeared in multiple bankruptcy proceedings says enough.

—

A copy of the complaint, filed by Flava Works Entertainment, Inc. and Blatino Media, Inc at the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, is available here (pdf)

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

The Internet Archive is widely known for its Wayback Machine, which preserves copies of the web for future generations.

These archiving efforts, which started decades ago, will become more valuable over time. The same could apply to IA’s other projects, including the digitization of old books and records.

Seven years ago, the Archive began archiving the sounds of 78rpm gramophone records, a format that is obsolete today. In addition to capturing their unique audio characteristics, including all ‘crackles and hisses’, this saves unique recordings for future generations before the vinyl or shellac disintegrates due to age.

The ‘ Great 78 Project ‘ received praise from curators, historians, and music fans but not all music industry insiders were happy with it. Several record labels including Sony and UMG, sued the Internet Archive for copyright infringement in federal court in 2023.

Labels Seek $693 Million in Damages

Last year, IA responded to these allegations with a motion to dismiss. According to the Archive, many of the claims were simply too late, as they supposedly pointed to infringements that occurred over three years ago. The record labels claimed they were aware of this; the RIAA sent a cease and desist letter on their behalf but took no further action at the time.

The U.S. federal court in California disagreed. After reviewing the positions from both sides, Judge Maxine Chesney concluded that it wasn’t clear that the statute of limitations had expired for all works, as the RIAA’s letter didn’t mention any specific infringements.

The case moved forward and last month the music labels requested permission to file a second amended complaint, which significantly raises the stakes. This updated version includes 4,624 works that were allegedly infringed by the Great 78 Project, as opposed to the 2,749 recordings listed in the original complaint.

The music companies request the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per work for each of these recordings, increasing potential damages to an astronomical $693 million.

Progress in Settlement Negotiations

The amended complaint has yet to be accepted by the court, but recent filings suggest that it may not get to that. Apparently, both camps have been engaged in settlement discussions that could potentially result in an alternative resolution.

In a joint filing, the parties asked the court to pause the lawsuit for thirty days so they can work on finalizing a deal. No terms are mentioned, but a resolution outside of court seems realistic.

Specifically, IA and the music labels state that they have “made significant progress in settlement discussions” and are “optimistic that settlement discussions may be successful and that this case can be dismissed.”

The court granted the request and stayed the case for thirty days, canceling a hearing that was planned for Friday. If a settlement is reached, the case can be dismissed; if not, the parties will have to propose a new schedule.

At the time of writing, the Great 78 Project remains online. While several recordings have been removed since the lawsuit was filed, including a copy of Bing Crosby’s White Christmas, many others remain accessible.

It’s not clear what type of settlement the parties have in mind, but the labels will likely insist that all allegedly infringing content is removed. The Internet Archive, in turn, will likely try to avoid any substantial damages.

—

A copy of the joint stipulation and the proposed order to stay the case for thirty days, granted on April 4th, is available here (pdf) . A copy of the proposed amended complaint with the 4,624 works can be found here (pdf)

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

With the continued growth of pirate IPTV services in recent years, TV broadcasters and distributors have been ramping up their anti-piracy efforts.

The International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy ( IBCAP ) has been particularly active. It’s also the main driver behind a new lawsuit filed yesterday by DISH Network at a Texas federal court.

Lemo TV & Kemo IPTV

The American pay-TV provider accuses the operators of popular streaming services ‘Lemo TV’ and ‘Kemo IPTV’ of direct copyright infringement. These services, operating from Lemotv.com and Kemoiptv.com respectively, promise access to “over 18,000 live channels” and “over 8,400 shows” for a fraction of the price of legal subscriptions.

“Defendants offer United States Subscribers a 36-hour free trial to the Service and sell Service Subscriptions for one device for $28.50 for six months, $39 for one year, $59 for two years, and $100 for four years,” the complaint notes.

In addition to selling direct to consumers, both services operate reseller programs. This allows third parties to launch their own custom-branded IPTV streaming sites and apps for under $200. Resellers purchase credits for use with their branded services which they can resell to their own customers at a significant markup.

In a footnote, DISH claims that resellers of Lemo TV and Kemo IPTV include the following: Xtremehdiptv.org, Bestusiptv.com, Slingtvbox.com, 1dollariptv.com, Fubo-iptv.com, Tv-wave.com, Kemoiptv.shop, Geministreamz.us, Honeybeetv.com, Honeybeeiptv.org, Honeybeeiptv.io, Dynastyiptv.shop, Dynastyiptv.com, Dynasty-iptv.com, Caliptostreams.com, and 4kliveiptv.com.

Unveiling the John Doe Operators

The complaint alleges Lemo and Kemo use the services of Cloudflare and Namecheap, which are both based in the United States. However, the identities of the operators remain unknown. DISH hopes to uncover more information through this lawsuit so it can name the defendants in an amended complaint.

To gather more information, DISH filed a motion to expedite discovery. Specifically, it seeks permission to subpoena a wide variety of third-party intermediaries who may be able to help identify the defendants.

These include Cloudflare and Namecheap, but also other hosting companies, payment providers, and social media services such as 24 Shells, Des Equity, Hivelocity, Tucows, GoDaddy.com, DigitalOcean, Newfold Digital, Google, Coinbase, PayPal, Meta Platforms, and X Corp.

The discovery request is not limited to the main Lemo and Kemo domains, but also includes the alleged reseller services, as shown below.

$25 Million in Damages

The lawsuit mentions that at least 171 registered copyrighted works were infringed and DISH seeks the maximum of $150,000 in statutory damages for each, totaling over $25 million. In addition, the complaint seeks an injunction to transfer the infringing domain names.

While their identities are currently unknown, DISH believes that the defendants acted willfully and on a massive scale, ignoring approximately 100 notices of infringement sent by IBCAP and DISH since February 2021.

IBCAP executive director Chris Kuelling says that their anti-piracy lab classifies Lemo and Kemo among the most egregious IPTV services. During the first quarter of 2025, the services accounted for nearly 30% of all unauthorized streams detected on set-top box and IPTV services.

Based on this data, IBCAP helps its members to select the prime candidates for legal action, which ultimately resulted in this week’s lawsuit.

“This lawsuit is the latest example of our lab’s ability to identify the pirate services that are significantly infringing our members’ content and stack-rank such services in order to target and remove the worst infringers.”

“This level of theft is unacceptable for our members, and we will put a swift stop to it—just as we have successfully done with numerous other pirate services through court-ordered injunctions,” Kuelling adds.

—

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strike 3 Strikes Gold

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court Issues Default Judgments

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

Lawsuits filed to address infringement can also play a key role as part of a wider deterrent messaging campaign. In the online arena inhabited by millions of pirates, dual-purpose lawsuits are especially common.

Even for Nintendo, suing every infringer isn’t just impractical. Negative exposure in the media has direct implications for image and branding. Additional risk of polluting or even displacing otherwise positive articles, could jeopardize what amounts to free advertising worth millions of dollars.

A deterrent message delivered on the back of the right case, however, could reach its target audience using the same means, with relatively few downsides. If the company had something similar in mind, a Nintendo lawsuit filed in November seems an almost perfect fit.

Targeting Jesse Keighin, aka EveryGameGuru, the lawsuit poses little risk to Nintendo’s image. It compresses many types of infringing and unlicensed activity into a single case, one so overwhelming in scope that resistance is likely to prove futile. Yet this complaint seems to offer more than just an easy win; on the deterrent front, it may offer something for everyone.

A Message For Gamers Everywhere?

Whether by pure coincidence or meticulous design, each type of offending alleged in the complaint relates to fairly common individual acts that, in isolation, millions of gamers will be familiar with already. The defendant’s potential downfall could send a message to pirates and emulator gamers everywhere: relatively minor individual acts can have serious consequences.

Live-streaming footage of games before their official release is a zero-tolerance issue for Nintendo, for example. Streaming is described in the complaint as the unauthorized public performance and reproduction of Nintendo’s copyrighted works. Live-streaming footage of any Nintendo game, regardless of date of release, using an illegal Switch emulator, is described as a violation of the company’s rights for exactly the same reason.

For those who enjoy sending links to friends or internet strangers, for the purposes of signposting locations where illegal emulators and/or ROMS can be downloaded, Nintendo alleges acts of inducement and contributory infringement. Sharing tiny files such as those carrying encryption keys, amounts to trafficking in circumvention devices under the DMCA.

As alleged, Keighin’s conduct was obviously much more serious than that of the average Joe. However, since relatively few gamers will be interested enough to soak up the details, any deterrent message – should Nintendo intend to send one – could end up especially broad.

That Keighin was a prolific streamer on YouTube, Discord, Twitch, TikTok, Trovo, Kick, Vaughn, Dlive, Picarto, Nimo, Facebook, and Loco, ensures social media reach with serious potential, although maybe not for a while.

Transforming a Dire Legal Position Into Something Worse

In an email dated November 8, notifying Keighin that a complaint had been filed at a court in Colorado, Nintendo expressed concern over evidence preservation, noting that things may have already gone off track.

“We have observed that, since filing of Nintendo’s litigation, you have begun deleting content you posted online, including content referenced in the Complaint. I write to remind you of your duty to preserve such evidence. Upon commencement of a litigation, litigants have a duty to preserve evidence relevant to the case,” the email reads.

“Please immediately confirm whether you have maintained copies of everything you have already deleted and that you will comply with your preservation obligations.”

Having received no such confirmation, a subsequent Nintendo email informed Keighin that efforts to serve him in person had failed multiple times already.

“We have been attempting to serve you with the summons and complaint (attached) for the above-captioned matter for multiple days, but after attempting several addresses, we have been unable to serve you personally. We believe you may be evading service. Indeed, we are aware that you have stated publicly that you are aware of this lawsuit,” the email reads.

Nintendo Not Thrilled By the Chase

In case the gamer preferred to waive formal service of the summons and complaint, Nintendo provided the necessary paperwork and offered to take care of everything upon receipt of a signature. Worth a shot, perhaps, but unlikely to succeed in light of Keighin’s response posted to X.

Court records reveal a number of failed attempts to serve the defendant at various addresses. One of those addresses appeared in five DMCA counternotices sent by Keighin, to reinstate content taken down by Nintendo DMCA notices.

An email sent to Nintendo on October 24, in connection with the suspension of an account for copyright infringement, suggested that further channel suspensions wouldn’t be effective.

According to Nintendo, it’s possible that preparations to avoid being served involved outside assistance. At various addresses, process servers found family members but no physical trace of the defendant.

To support its claim, Nintendo provided a screenshot of a Facebook post; it limited who could respond, but not who could view.

Fueling the Fire

Other evidence to show that Keighin knew about the lawsuit appears in a screenshot of a brief encounter with a 9news journalist hoping for a story. A Facebook post that used profanity to declare zero interest in the case, allegedly addressed a colleague at law firm Jenner & Block LLP using the word “BITCH”.

A friend’s post on X, suggesting that Keighin should fight the “legendary” lawsuit in court dressed as Mario, carried less weight than Keighin’s own posts three days later. They reveal a plan to “piss Nintendo off” by causing the company to waste “a ton of money” on legal fees, before ensuring that “Nintendo gets nothing” after waving “Bowser’s Bankruptcy Magic Wand.”

In his posts on social media, Keighin says that “he’s making sure there’s no precedence [sic] set here” and at minimum expects to “go down in video game history.”

The Nintendo lawsuit filed against Yuzu last year concluded with a win for the gaming company, minus any attempt to have the case settled on the merits, let alone set some type of precedent. Going down in video game history could go either way.

As the person who gifted Nintendo more than they ever imagined, in what is likely to be an uncontested default judgment, history may quickly forget. That Nintendo will emerge without even a scratch, having easily maintained the usually tricky moral high ground, is indeed one for the history books. Maybe even worthy of a memorable quote.

“Should have done more research on me,” Keighin warned Nintendo’s legal team.

“You might run a corporation. I run the streets.”

The complaint and subsequent filings are available here

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

Nearly a decade ago, the US Navy was sued for mass copyright infringement and accused of causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

The lawsuit was filed by the German company Bitmanagement . It’s not a typical piracy case in the sense that software was downloaded from shady sources. Instead, it deals with unauthorized installations.

It all started in 2008 when the US Navy began testing Bitmanagement’s 3D virtual reality application ‘BS Contact Geo’. After some testing, the Navy installed the software across its network, assuming that it had permission to do so.

This turned out to be a crucial misunderstanding. Bitmanagement said it never authorized this type of use and when it heard that the Navy had installed the software on 558,466 computers, the company took legal action.

Bitmanagement Wins Appeal

In a complaint filed at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in 2016, the German company accused the US Navy of mass copyright infringement and demanded damages for the alleged unauthorized use.

The Court initially ruled in favor of the government, but Bitmanagement appealed. In 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sided with the software company, concluding that the US Government is indeed liable .

This meant that the matter was reverted to the Federal Claims court, to determine an appropriate damages amount. This part of the legal battle was just as crucial, as potential damages ranged from tens of thousands of dollars to more than $100 million.

$155,400,000 in Piracy Damages?

Bitmanagement told the court that it is entitled to $155,400,000 in copyright infringement damages. The figure was based on more than 600,000 copies of the software allegedly installed by the Navy, multiplied by the negotiated $370 license per install, minus a 30% discount.

The U.S. Government disagreed. To counter the software company, it brought forward expert witness David Kennedy. After reviewing various log files, Mr. Kennedy concluded that the software was used by a few hundred unique users at most.

The witness further argued that a price of up to $200 per license would likely have been reasonable. The amount was lower than the $370 per install previously quoted, but warranted due to the large number of licenses involved.

Court Awards $154,400, Bitmanagement Appeals

The Federal Claims Court ultimately went along with the Government’s position, awarding $154,400 in damages.

The damages figure is based on 635 unique users and a license fee of $200. The court also awarded an additional $350 for each of the 100 simultaneous-use licenses the Navy would have agreed to.

The court stressed that its damages calculation was based on objective considerations, characterizing it as “fair and reasonable”. Bitmanagement had a different take and requested a higher damages award at the Court of Appeals.

Appeals Court Affirms $154,400 Damages Award

Earlier this month, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reached its decision. After hearing both sides, it concluded that the $154,400 award was correct.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the damages figure, noting that the law does not require every award of copyright damages to be on a per-copy basis.

“No case that we or the parties have identified, in this or any other circuit, requires that an award of copyright damages invariably be on a per-copy basis,” the decision notes.

The court also held that the Court of Federal Claims did not err when it required Bitmanagement, rather than the Navy, to prove how much the U.S. Navy used the software. Finally, the court was within its right to admit the testimony of the government’s expert witness.

“We have considered Bitmanagement’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. Because the Court of Federal Claims’ damages award was not an abuse of discretion, we affirm,” the court concludes.

While this is certainly a unique case, it’s not the first time the U.S. military has been “caught” pirating software. The Government was previously accused of operating unlicensed logistics software, a case the Obama administration eventually settled for $50 million.

—

A copy of the verdict released by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is available here (pdf)

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

File-hosting platform 1fichier.com appeared around 2009 and since then has seen no shortage of copyright complaints.

Most recently, it was highlighted by the U.S. Trade Representative as a notorious piracy market. The site’s response to takedown notices is seen as insufficient by rightsholders, the USTR concluded.

These allegations are nothing new to 1Fichier and parent company Dstorage. However, where other services typically evade legal threats, 1fichier has defended itself in court, albeit with little success.

Nintendo previously sued the file hosting company and won, both in first instance and on appeal. 1fichier now owes the gaming giant hundreds of thousands of euros in damages, which has yet to be confirmed in a follow-up proceeding.

A Decade of Payment Troubles

Long before Nintendo appeared into view, 1fichier already had plenty of other worries. The shutdown of Megaupload in 2012 put a spotlight on the cyberlocker industry and, urged by rightsholders, major payment companies started to intervene.

PayPal notably increased its enforcement efforts, banning dozens of services, and in the background banks were cutting their ties too. Société Générale terminated its contract with 1fichier in 2015 due to concerns over piracy.

The French ban followed an alert by Mastercard and complaints from Zee Entertainment, which alleged that hundreds of links to copyrighted works were being shared on the site. The bank referred these complaints to 1fichier, asking it to take appropriate action.

While the file-hosting site claimed it responded to these takedowns, it couldn’t prevent similar files from being shared. That was a problem. After new complaints were received, Société Générale decided to terminate its contact with 1fichier.

Anti-Piracy Provision in Bank Contract

The French bank didn’t just arbitrarily cut its ties. The company had previously updated its contracts with clients to include a section where they agreed to stay away from illegal activities, including “acts of counterfeiting and infringements of works protected by intellectual property rights.”

Most cyberlockers would have taken termination for granted, but not 1fichier. The French site went to court, arguing that it should not be held responsible for third-party copyright infringements without being notified about specific instances first.

In court, 1fichier argued that hosting services are only at fault when they fail to remove content after being specifically notified about concrete infringements. In addition, the service claimed to have taken steps to prevent pirated content from reappearing.

The French courts disagreed and ultimately ruled that the bank was within its right to terminate the contract based on the copyright infringement clause. This conclusion was confirmed by the court of appeal in 2023, which determined that 1fichier’s response to the reported infringements was insufficient.

Supreme Court Affirms

1fichier’s parent company Dstorage took the case to the French Supreme Court ( Cour de Cassation ), hoping for a reversal. However, in a decision handed down this week, the court affirmed the appeal court’s verdict.

The Supreme Court notes that the bank warned the hosting company of copyright infringements, including a link to content that was previously reported, concluding that 1fichier failed to demonstrate that it had implemented appropriate anti-piracy measures.

“Based on the findings and the statements, which indicated that Dstorage had failed to comply with its contractual undertaking not to publish or store any illicit content, the court of appeal was able to hold that Société Générale had rightly terminated the contract. The plea is therefore unfounded,” the Supreme Court’s decision reads.

The Supreme Court saw no need to refer any questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Instead, it dismissed the case and ordered Dstorage to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Monitoring Obligation?

1fichier is disappointed with the outcome. Speaking with TorrentFreak the hosting platform says that the court effectively ruled that it has an obligation to monitor its service for potential copyright infringements. The company views that as problematic and a violation of EU law.

This is reminiscent of the indirect ‘upload filter’ requirements referenced in Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive. However, under Article 15 of the EU E-Commerce Directive, member states cannot impose a general monitoring obligation on service providers.

For 1fichier, this is sufficient ground to take the case to the EU authorities for clarification. But even if the EU takes the case on, it will likely take years before a decision is reached. Meanwhile, the site still accepts PayPal, Visa, and Mastercard payments through third parties.

—

A copy of the decision from the Cour de Cassation Chambre commerciale financière et économique is available here (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.