Rightsholders see Italy’s elaborate ‘ Piracy Shield ‘ system as the future of anti-piracy efforts.

The broad blocking powers it provides certainly made an impact this year but not all news was positive.

Multiple reports of overblocking included mishaps where the anti-piracy system blocked access to Google Drive and other legitimate sites and services . An incident just after launch saw a Cloudflare IP-address blocked which rendered many legitimate websites inaccessible.

Cloudflare’s Piracy Shield Responsibilities

Cloudflare wasn’t only targeted inadvertently. Earlier this year, football league Serie A filed a complaint against the company at the Court of Milan, an attempt to compel Cloudflare’s participation in the novel anti-piracy system.

Cloudflare was able to fend off this approach after the court concluded that it lacked authority to compel Cloudflare to join the Piracy Shield program. Serie A’s subsequent appeal turned things around, however.

On appeal, the Court of Milan concluded that Cloudflare’s services are instrumental in enabling the illegal streaming of football matches, since they allow users to bypass the Piracy Shield blocks imposed by AGCOM.

The court sees this as a “causal contribution” to copyright infringement, which is sufficient to establish legal responsibility and compel Cloudflare to take action.

“Both Cloudflare’s causal contribution to the reported offenses through its services, and its refusal to prevent the violations despite the warning issued by the rightsholders, are established,” the Court of Milan writes (loosely translated) .

All Cloudflare Services

The Court of Milan’s decision prohibits Cloudflare from resolving domain names and routing internet traffic to IP addresses of all services present on the “Piracy Shield” system. This also applies to future domains and aliases used by these pirate services.

The order applies to Cloudflare’s content delivery network (CDN), DNS services, and reverse proxy services. The order also mentions Cloudflare’s free VPN among the targets, likely referring to the WARP service.

If any of the targeted pirate streaming providers use Cloudflare’s services to infringe on Serie A’s copyrights, the company Cloudflare must stop providing CDN, authoritative DNS, and reverse proxy services to these customers.

( Note: This is an Italian court order and Cloudflare previously used geotargeting to block sites only in Italy . It may respond similarly here, but terminating customer accounts only in Italy might be more complicated. )

Finally, the order further includes a data disclosure component, under which Cloudflare must identify customers who use Cloudflare’s services to offer pirated streams. This should help Serie A to track down those responsible.

The data disclosure section also covers information related to the ‘VPN’ and alternative public DNS services, where these relate to the IPTV platforms identified in the case. That covers traffic volume and connection logs, including IP-addresses and timestamps.

In theory, that could also cover data on people who accessed these services using Cloudflare’s VPN and DNS resolver.

‘Crucial Ruling’

Law firms Studio Previti and SPTech Legal , who represented Serie A and several intervening parties, are pleased with the outcome. In a press release, they state that the order highlights Cloudflare’s responsibility as a third-party intermediary and access provider.

“This decision represents a crucial step in the battle against digital piracy,” Lawyer Lorenzo Pinci writes in a detailed overview of the order.

“Not only because it constitutes the first interpretative ruling of Law 93/2023 and the functioning of the ‘Piracy Shield’ platform, but also because it established Cloudflare’s role as an intermediary and provider of network access services utilized to facilitate piracy.”

Cloudflare did not respond to our request for comment at the time of publication, but it’s clear that the order is a massive setback for the company, which sees itself mostly as a passive intermediary.

The court ordered Cloudflare to cover the costs of the proceeding and if it doesn’t implement the blocking requirements in time, an additional fine of €10,000 per day will apply.

—

A copy of the order, as issued by the Court of Milan, is available here ( pdf, Italian ).

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

Two years after its debut in 2005, Rojadirecta faced legal action in Spain for providing links to unlicensed sports streams. Rojadirecta was adamant that under existing law the site operated legally and steadfastly refused to shut down.

In 2009, that position was endorsed by a district court and then upheld by a provincial court after rightsholders filed an appeal.

Despite the losing streak, rightsholders subsequently convinced the Department of Homeland Security to seize two of Rojadirecta’s domain names; under mounting legal pressure, DHS eventually gave them back . A shifting legal landscape and unwavering rightsholder pressure ensured that successive wins like these would soon become a thing of the past.

Mediapro Delivers a Significant Blow

In 2016, Puerto 80 Projects SL – the Spanish company behind Rojadirecta – was found liable for violating the intellectual property rights of broadcaster Mediapro. Rojadirecta’s subsequent appeal failed in 2018, effectively ending the site’s ability to service any further visitors from Spain.

Despite landing a significant win, Mediapro wasn’t entirely happy with the outcome. The Commercial Court of A Coruña ruled that liability for Rojadirecta’s infringement lay with Puerto 80 Projects SL, a company run by Igor Seoane, the man who had operated Rojadirecta from the very beginning. With piracy battles becoming ever more bitter, Mediapro wanted to see Seoane personally on the hook.

Supreme Court Confirms Joint Liability

In 2022, Mediapro’s persistence paid off. Spain’s Supreme Court ruled that Puerto 80 Projects SL, and company owner/Rojadirecta operator Igor Seoane, could be held jointly liable.

Commercial Court No. 2 of A Coruña has now determined the amount of compensation to be paid to Mediapro, for infringement carried out a decade ago during the 2014/2015 football season.

With the commercial entity and its owner confirmed liable, on Friday the Court ordered Puerto 80 and owner Seoane to pay Mediapro 31.6 million euros (US$33m), with Puerto 80 and Seoane jointly liable for 15.6 million euros (US$16.3m) of the total award.

Believed to be the most significant award ever handed down in a Spanish case of its kind, the figure is said to represent how much it would’ve cost to obtain a license to show the content legally.

Mediapro Welcomes Decision

Rojadirecta has been facilitating access to unlicensed content in Spain for almost 20 years, primarily through links that allow users to watch live sports content that’s ordinarily available on pay TV platforms in exchange for a fee.

On the consumer side, Rojadirecta has always been available for free, something that undoubtedly plays a significant part in its enduring popularity even today. It’s alleged that Puerto 80’s business model has generated millions of euros from both regular advertising and affiliate commissions earned by diverting visitors to sports betting websites.

Criminal Prosecution For Same Conduct

In parallel, Puerto 80 and Igor Seoane are also fighting a criminal prosecution pursued by Mediapro and LaLiga. The companies claim that Seoane continues to unlawfully benefit from ongoing infringement by providing access to illegal streams via Rojadirecta.

The matter is still in its early stages but with a demand for a four-year prison sentence, the prosecutor clearly means business. Mediapro and LaLiga are demanding a six-year prison sentence, alleging that Rojadirecta continues to operate illegally outside Spain.

Puerto 80 and its owner should have deposited a bond of 4.15 million euros to cover future liabilities, the prosecutor said, noting the ‘special economic significance’ of the profits and damages alleged in the case.

Citing expert reports from 2022, ElMundo reports that in 2022, just one of the company’s accounts reportedly showed income of more than 11 million euros.

Rojadirecta Was Created to Solve a Problem

According to an ABC report ( paywall ), a then 21-year-old Seoane was inspired to launch Rojadirecta one afternoon; he wanted to watch his team (Barca) play but didn’t really feel like going to the bar where pay-per-view events are often shown. “There has to be another way to do it,” he thought.

Two decades later, ABC notes that Seoane – who speaks English, Portuguese, and Galician fluently, and is able to “get by” in French and Italian – is rarely seen in public, except during various Rojadirecta-related trials he has to attend.

“In some of them he has appeared disguised, with a showy curly wig and glasses. Thus, he has been described as the ‘Galician without a face’, an anonymity that gave rise to various myths about his place of residence, among some Internet users who considered him a kind of ‘Robin Hood’, capable of bringing football back to its fans.”

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

The legal saga of News-Service Europe ( NSE ) and anti-piracy group BREIN has taken another dramatic turn.

Once a titan in the Usenet world, NSE was forced to shut down in 2011 after BREIN took legal action on behalf of the movie and music industries.

In its initial verdict, the Court of Amsterdam concluded that NSE willingly facilitated online piracy through its services. As a result, the company was ordered to remove all copyrighted content and filter future posts for possible copyright infringements.

According to the Usenet provider, this filtering requirement would’ve been too costly to implement so it shut down its service but appealed the case.

NSE Wins Appeal

After several more years of litigation, the Amsterdam appeals court ruled that NSE wasn’t liable for users’ pirating activities after all, but NSE was required to offer a responsive and effective notice and takedown procedure, possibly with additional measures.

Unhappy with the outcome, BREIN decided to take the matter to the Dutch Supreme Court. While NSE was no longer a threat, the case could prove crucial for many other Usenet providers.

Last year, the Supreme Court confirmed that the Usenet provider shouldn’t be held liable for pirating users. The fact that NSE had a decent takedown procedure and no apparent knowledge of infringement, weighed in its favor.

The Court also confirmed that NSE didn’t curate any content, nor did it specifically promote copyright infringement.

NSE Sues BREIN for Millions in Damages

NSE’s victory was bittersweet; its operation had long been shut down due to BREIN’s legal pressure. Now, after years of legal battles and a final vindication, NSE is back in court once again.

In a lawsuit filed today, NSE demands damages from BREIN that could potentially reach millions of euros.

According to NSE, BREIN’s lawsuit essentially forced the service to shut down, even though the case was appealed. As a result, the entire team lost their jobs and the company’s owners faced expensive legal bills.

Although the court’s requirements led to the shutdown, NSE sees BREIN as the main instigator, because the anti-piracy group didn’t want to wait for the appeal to play out.

“BREIN deliberately made it impossible for us to continue,” NSE co-founder and former CEO Patrick Schreurs says. “BREIN decided not to wait for the appeal and to force us to comply with the verdict immediately. That was completely unnecessary. We have always found that incomprehensible.”

NSE co-founder Wierd Bonthuis, who previously served as CFO, notes that the Supreme Court confirmed that BREIN was wrong. To fully set the record straight, the Usenet provider now seeks full compensation.

“The confirmation of the highest Dutch court is a great first step towards complete justice. This will happen if BREIN fully compensates us for the damage that its stubbornness has caused,” Bonthuis says.

“We look forward to the verdict in the case filed today with great confidence,” he adds.

BREIN Sheds a Different Light on the Case

BREIN has not yet seen the summons, but in an initial response it believes that NSE was never able to simply restart its original service. Instead, it should have taken measures against the enormous amount of unauthorized content on its servers.

The parties never finalized discussions on what an effective takedown policy would entail. Instead of engaging in court-mandated negotiations, BREIN director Bastiaan van Ramshorst says that NSE decided to shut down its service.

“BREIN awaits the summons in confidence. The fact remains that all that copyright-protected content, including films, TV series, books, games and software, made it attractive for consumers to take out a subscription with a commercial Usenet provider.

“The loss of profit by not being able to offer illegally offered protected content of others is of course no basis for a lawsuit,” Van Ramshorst adds.

All in all it’s clear that, after more than 15 years, the newly filed lawsuit adds yet another chapter to what is already one of the longest running piracy lawsuits in history.

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

According to an infamous anti-piracy PSA that just recently celebrated its 20th birthday, downloading a copy of a movie is the same as stealing a physical disc from a regular store, stealing a handbag, or even stealing a car.

These claims remain factually incorrect but at the time the PSA was released, rightsholders needed to drive a simple message home. While the act of stealing is instantly recognized by billions all over the world, two decades ago downloading a movie was still relatively new, mostly invisible, and didn’t even require physical media to exist.

Conflating a crime people understood with the act of downloading a movie may have helped some understand a new concept, but that still didn’t make the stealing claims true. In this context the unforgettable campaign slogan ‘Piracy is a Crime’ wasn’t the universal fit it claimed to be either. Nevertheless, twenty years later similar tactics are still in use, despite piracy itself being much more broadly understood.

Piracy Isn’t Always a Crime, Even When Dressed Up as Something Else

As telecoms regulator AGCOM warns that people who simply use pirate IPTV subscriptions risk having their details forwarded for prosecution, a case with alleged offenses dating back to January 2017 has been progressing in the background.

In summary, a man from Gallarate in northern Italy operated a website where pirate IPTV subscriptions were sold. After making payment via Postepay accounts that don’t provide anonymity, customers gained illegal access to streaming content owned by companies including Mediaset, Sky, DAZN, and Disney, but paid them nothing for the privilege.

In 2017, Europe’s highest court confirmed that simply streaming pirate content is illegal under copyright law, but prosecutors in Italy had a different idea. All 23 pirate IPTV subscription buyers were prosecuted for the crime of receiving stolen goods. It didn’t go well.

Two Different Case Tracks, Same Outome

Thirteen of the defendants opted to be heard under an abbreviated procedure which was heard recently, with the remaining nine defendants appearing before Judge Bianca Maria Todaro at the Court of Lecce in April this year.

The prosecutor argued that the defendants effectively profited from the cheap subscriptions and knew they were illegal. The company now known as Mediaset Premium spiced up the criminal procedure with an €80,000 civil claim for compensation.

Lawyers for the defendants argued that a decision dating back to 2005 clearly shows that, since violations were exclusively of an administrative nature, all of their clients should be acquitted of the alleged crime.

In her decision, Judge Todaro noted that the defendants had indeed purchased the pirate IPTV subscriptions, but had done so for strictly personal use. With no aggravating factors suggesting anything other than private consumption, the Judge said no crime had been committed. And since an administrative sanction was applicable, criminal convictions for receiving stolen goods were ruled out.

The administrative sanction for each defendant was €154, with a 33% discount available for those who settled their account within 60 days.

Thirteen IPTV Pirates Acquitted

The remaining 13 defendants appeared before Judge Roberta Maggio last week, charged with exactly the same crime of receiving stolen goods.

Judge Maggio acknowledged the purchase of the illicit subscriptions but said there was no evidence to show that any of the defendants sold, distributed, or held subscriptions for resale purposes.

Indeed, the decision states that the defendants’ possession of the subscriptions was for “purely personal purposes.” Since that is an administrative matter to be settled with a payment of €154 (minus 33% discount for prompt settlement), no crime of receiving stolen goods ever took place.

Under Italian legislation passed in 2023, those who simply use or view copyrighted content without permission face an administrative fine of between €154 and €5,000. The decisions handed down by both judges indicate that a first time offense of possessing an illegal IPTV subscription for personal use is €154, an amount only likely to increase for subsequent offenses.

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

After investing huge resources into tackling pirate IPTV platforms as significant as the one reportedly taken down last week , a little stagecraft should be as expected when authorities and rightsholders declare victory.

Information suggests that the blackout impacted supply across Europe and beyond, so a small amount of window-dressing on the number of users affected and profits generated don’t really have a misleading impact. There’s no denying the importance of the operation either; a lot of information was shared by the authorities and while difficult to confirm, in general most things felt coherent and unforced.

As previously highlighted, negatives related to these types of operations usually receive no mention, even when so serious that they completely undermine statements made just hours previously .

There’s nothing like that following last week’s operation, but it will be a serious concern that end-users whose providers relied on those streams were mostly without service for just 48/72 hours, several sources suggest.

Clearly, users of these services need to be dissuaded.

The Importance of User Attitudes

There are well-publicized efforts to convince users of pirate services that they’re incurring various risks, up to and including being sent to prison.

In Greece right now there are hundreds of news articles (unrelated to the events of last week) reporting on a “landmark” and/or “historic” decision by a local court to send a pirate IPTV subscriber to prison for five months. We reviewed a total of 62 of these articles and selected two for illustration purposes within this article (translated from Greek) .

Leaving aside that a casual reader might believe the sentence was connected to events last week ( zero action reported in Greece by Europol), the article is consistent with the majority of dozens of others in claiming a “historical precedent” (first time a user has received a custodial sentence), a “significant shift” in judicial attitudes, and interestingly “a return to the rule of law.”

Common Details in the Majority of Articles

There appears to be no question that the defendant was indeed a pirate IPTV subscriber, but pleading not guilty with the defense outlined below seems quite the long shot. There seems no reasonable basis to criticize the Court’s conclusion that the defense lacked credibility, at least how the case is being reported.

“The judges concluded that the consequences of piracy cannot be considered ‘minor,’ given the enormous damage it causes on multiple levels,” a report from Skair.gr reads.

The Skai article is cited on many occasions as the source of this news, likewise a video news report from Alpha TV.

Effectively The Same Source For All Articles

Skai, AlphaTV news, and the majority of publications citing these outlets as a source, state that the trial judges rejected the notion that the defendant’s viewing of pirate IPTV streams was anything other than a serious matter.

“According to the evidence presented at the trial, pay-TV piracy causes serious economic and social consequences, such as revenue losses for the Greek State from the non-collection of VAT and tax revenues and the parallel circulation of ‘black money’,” Skai reports.

“It causes damage to Greek society from the loss of jobs and the non-payment of remuneration to creators. And it increases crime as pirate organizations have a clear criminal organization structure with a multitude of parallel criminal crimes. And finally, piracy causes financial disaster for providers from revenue losses and degradation of the quality of services.”

These talking points are well-worn industry standards across the world. The articles state that these claims were provided in evidence, so these aren’t necessarily the words of any or all of the three judges. Yet this is where things start to get interesting.

The Important Details Are Those That Didn’t Get Reported

Let’s start with the basics that any journalist would include in the most mundane of reports. Despite being central to the entire ‘historic decision’ the defendant almost seems irrelevant.

Privacy issues surrounding real names aside, there is no indication whether the defendant is a 29-year-old man from the Athens area, or a grandmother in her sixties from Thessaloniki. Since this was a criminal case, details such as when the investigation began or even when the person was arrested and what for – nada, nothing.

And there’s the Court where the historic decision was handed down, the Athens Court of Appeals for Misdemeanors. If we assume that having “Court of Appeals” in the title means what it says, logically this can’t be the first trial. So when was the first trial, what were the allegations, in which court did it take place, and what was the outcome?

For that matter, on what basis was there an appeal? Did the defendant get found not guilty? If so, when was the announcement and if not, why wasn’t there an announcement in the interests of balanced reporting?

Given the industry standard evidence in respect of the damage caused by IPTV, it should be safe to assume there is an injured party, such as a broadcaster or similar rightsholder.

Who is that party or parties?

Perhaps more to the point, why isn’t that party and all the other major rightsholders in Greece, all over this landmark decision and wringing every last piece of value out of it? Having got a headsup on the historic event, why isn’t a single source mentioned in the initial report?

Why hasn’t any major rightsholder welcomed the decision in public? This is exactly what many have been demanding for the last few years yet now, all of a sudden, nobody wants to own it, celebrate it, or even give it a mention?

Nobody is Going to Prison

Why many reports insist that the anonymous defendant is going to prison is unclear. A source familiar with the Greek legal system informs TF that a five-month sentence would almost certainly be suspended, likely for a period of three years.

Effectively, if the defendant stays on the straight and narrow, no prison time will be served. Interestingly the issue of compensation hasn’t been reported at all, which is very unusual when the entertainment industries are involved. Again, the suspended aspect of the sentence would likely ensure nothing would be paid anyway.

Of course, all of these issues are extremely relevant and could be easily cleared up in a handful of minutes. Instead, a story with no cited source has effectively become the single source of truth without providing any of the important details that might explain why such a long sentence was warranted.

Previous convictions perhaps, or breaching an injunction? Absconded foreigner, we’ve seen that before . It’s all guesswork really, unlike the details of another anti-piracy initiative that’s stated on record as actually working.

Cosmote TV / Nova Deal Was a Success

In the summer we reported how two of the largest streaming platforms in Greece launched a highly experimental approach to tackling piracy; cheap bundles, to lower the costs for legitimate viewers.

Cosmote TV and Nova signed a new deal designed to provide customers with access to more sports for less money. Starting on August 23, subscribers of one service could get content from the other, for a minimal extra charge. According to a Business in Brief report, that really hit the spot.

The value brought by the summer agreement between Cosmote TV and Nova was pointed out by the CEO of OTE, Kostas Nebis, during the analysts’ briefing on OTE’s figures.

Mr. Nebis emphasized that through the agreement Cosmote TV subscribers increased in the third quarter, with the number of new subscribers setting a new record in September. He estimated that this upward trend will continue until the end of this year, while also in 2025 it will give a boost to the company’s figures.

He noted that the promotional period, during which Cosmote subscribers had free access to Nova’s sports content, ended at the end of October, while at the beginning of this month, the application of the additional charge of €3 on a monthly basis began. Something that will be seen in the group’s revenues, in the figures it will announce in the first quarter of 2025.

Mr. Nebis emphasized that piracy is receding, but many steps still need to be taken. The penetration of legal subscription television in our country is 30%, a much lower percentage compared to the average of European countries.

It’s rumored that Greece will soon begin fining IPTV subscribers €600, payable to the Greek tax office, should they be unlucky enough to have their personal details exposed in the event their supplier gets busted. It’s unlikely that those numbers will be extremely high so perhaps having a prison sentence hanging in the air could prove useful.

Credible sources prepared to go on record are useful too, but the people can’t have everything.

Update: Article updated concerning Skai/Alpha connections

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

In November 2018, DISH Network filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Jadoo TV and its CEO Sajid Sohail.

Jadoo TV distributed self-branded set-top IPTV boxes and later various software apps. The DISH complaint described Jadoo TV’s operation as a “deliberate, multi-year effort” to distribute its exclusively-licensed TV channels without authorization, amounting to direct, contributory, and vicarious infringement under 17 U.S.C. Section 501 .

From the beginning, DISH took the position that Sohail could be held personally liable because he authorized, directed, or participated in Jadoo TV’s copyright-infringing activities. Sohail argued to the contrary but in September 2020, the court found “plausible inference” that Sohail “authorized, directed, or participated” in the alleged infringement.

In June 2023, the court granted summary judgment against Jadoo TV and Sohail, finding them liable for direct, contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, noting that Sohail was personally liable as the “guiding spirit” behind the infringement carried out via Jadoo TV.

Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction

In a joint stipulation filed yesterday at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, DISH Network and Jadoo TV, Inc. and Sajid Sohail, filed a request that the Court enter a final judgment and permanent injunction.

“DISH and Defendants agree that a final judgment should be entered for DISH on Counts I, II, and III of the Amended Complaint for direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501 ,” the request reads.

“DISH and Defendants also agree that damages should be awarded to DISH in the amount of $24,969,911, consisting of statutory damages of $14,550,000
for 97 registered Works (calculated at $150,000 per Work) and Defendants’ profits of $10,419,911 for 159 unregistered Works. 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), (c)(2) .”

DISH and the defendants also agreed to the Court’s entry of a permanent injunction, effective immediately, enjoining Jadoo TV and Sohail and any other persons acting in concert, from infringing the plaintiff’s rights moving forward.

IBCAP Welcomes Conclusion of Long-Running Litigation

In an announcement welcoming the end of the long-running litigation which dates back to 2018, the International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy (IBCAP) celebrated the win alongside IBCAP member DISH.

“This final judgment and settlement marks the culmination of a six-year legal battle against one of the most popular South Asian services offering pirated content, Jadoo TV, and its CEO, who was found personally liable for the damages caused by his and his company’s copyright infringement,” says Chris Kuelling, executive director of IBCAP.

“Today’s announcement sends a strong message that the end of the road for a pirate IPTV service is a significant monetary payment and loss of your entire business.”

The statement also revealed the existence of a separate settlement, one that has a financial component but also potential implications for entities that conducted business with Jadoo TV.

“Jadoo TV and Mr. Sohail agreed to transfer all Jadoo TV customer lists to DISH, transfer all Jadoo TV trademarks and domain names to DISH, and pay DISH $1,500,000 by Feb. 20, 2025,” the statement reads.

Details of the final judgment and permanent injunction are available here ( pdf )

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

Nintendo is doing everything in its power to stop the public from playing pirated games on the Switch console.

This involves sending a steady stream of cease and desist letters and takedown notices. If those don’t work, Nintendo is prepared to go to court as well.

Nintendo Sues r/SwitchPirates Mod

In July, Nintendo filed a lawsuit at a Washington federal court against Arizona-resident J. Williams, known online as ‘Archbox’. Nintendo accused Archbox of being involved in several ‘pirate shops’ through which copies of unauthorized games are distributed.

“Defendant is the operator, overseer, and driving force behind several Pirate Shops, through which Defendant has offered massive libraries of pirated Nintendo Switch games,” the complaint read.

Nintendo specifically named ‘Jack-in-the-Shop’, ‘Turtle in the Shop’ and ‘NekoDrive’, which were shut down following a cease and desist letter Nintendo sent in March. A fourth shop, LiberaShop, remained on Telegram, but shut down soon after the complaint was filed.

In addition to running these pirate shops, the defendant allegedly helped people to obtain and use circumvention software, so they could play pirated games. Nintendo says that this activity was boosted through the SwitchPirates subreddit, where Archbox was a moderator.

“Defendant became a leading (if not the primary) moderator of the SwitchPirates Reddit community, which he helped grow to nearly 190,000 members,” the complaint read.

According to Nintendo, the moderator used Reddit to direct people to pirate shops, show them how to download and install circumvention software, and guide them on playing pirated Nintendo Switch games.

Nintendo Seeks Info From Reddit, Discord, Google, and Others

After filing the lawsuit, Nintendo had trouble serving the defendant, but it eventually managed to do so in August. However, Mr. Williams didn’t file an answer to the complaint, which led to an entry of default earlier this month.

In the absence of a defense, Nintendo can now request a default judgment, ideally based on additional evidence not yet in its possession. As a result, Nintendo is requesting a subpoena to obtain information from Reddit, Discord, Google, GitHub, Namecheap and other third party services.

These companies may hold evidence to strengthen the claims against Mr. Williams and may be able to help identify additional defendants, including members of the r/SwitchPirates subreddit who were also involved in the pirate shops.

“[W]ithout third party discovery it will be impossible for [Nintendo] to ascertain the identity of the unnamed individuals who worked with Mr. Williams in operating the Pirate Shops or otherwise making available to the public pirated Nintendo games,” the company writes.

Nintendo says that it’s looking for limited information that can help to identify account holders and payment streams, as well as traffic and access statistics for the pirate shops.

Identifying More Reddit Users?

In addition to revealing the owners of various accounts, some companies can likely provide more detailed information. GitHub, for example, may know how often ‘circumvention’ software was downloaded, and Google can share Gmail data and traffic statistics for the files it stored.

Reddit may also hold key information, as the SwitchPirates subreddit plays a central role in the accusations. Nintendo believes that the defendant was a moderator there and may have controlled other user handles, or collaborated with other potential defendants.

Through the requested subpoenas, Nintendo hopes to get more clarity and potentially identify any additional defendants.

“Reddit is therefore likely to be in possession of information that will aid in preparation of Nintendo’s anticipated motion for a default judgment against Defendant, and that will assist in identifying any other individuals appropriate to name in an amended complaint.

“Reddit is also expected to have information pertaining to the growth of, and traffic to, the SwitchPirates subreddit during the relevant period of Defendant’s activities,” Nintendo adds.

At the time of writing, the court has yet to grant the motion. If Nintendo is allowed to proceed, it’s possible that additionally defendants will eventually be added to the lawsuit.

—

A copy of Nintendo’s ex parte motion for leave to take limited early discovery is available here (pdf)

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

In 2020, the RIAA infuriated many players in the open source community by targeting YouTube-ripping tool youtube-dl.

The RIAA sent a takedown notice to GitHub, alleging that the software bypassed technological protection measures, in violation of the DMCA.

GitHub initially complied but later changed course. After consulting legal experts, including those at the EFF, it restored the youtube-dl repository. GitHub also launched a million-dollar defense fund to assist developers in similar disputes.

Targeting Youtube-dl’s Host

This episode was a massive setback for the music industry, which had been fighting stream-ripping tools for years. However, instead of laying down their arms, Sony Entertainment, Warner Music Group and Universal Music went after Uberspace , youtube-dl’s website hosting company in Germany.

Last year, the music companies prevailed in this lawsuit . The Hamburg Regional Court ruled that youtube-dl violates the law as it bypasses YouTube’s anti-circumvention measures.

Going one step further, the court also concluded that as a host, Uberspace can be held liable for youtube-dl’s activities. The hosting provider received a takedown notice for the website in the past but continued to host it. According to Uberspace, the software wasn’t clearly illegal, but the court ruled that the company should have known better.

Disappointed with the outcome, Uberspace owner Jonas Pasche swiftly appealed the ruling. According to Pasche, the court made a big mistake that could have far-reaching consequences for the hosting industry.

Court Rejects Appeal

While Uberspace hoped to overturn the lower court’s judgment, the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg decided to reject the appeal in full. A copy of the order has yet to be made public, but the German Federal Music Industry Association ( BVMI ) describes it as a clear victory.

“This confirms the judgment of the regional court, which already required the defendants to stop providing the stream ripping software YouTube-DL. At the same time, the general liability for damages was established,” BVMI writes .

René Houareau, the music group’s Managing Director of Legal & Policy, notes that the court sends yet another clear signal that hosting companies of ‘infringing’ services can be held liable too.

“This is another judicial clarification and warning. Not only to the providers of stream ripping tools and the operators of the corresponding services, but also to the hosting providers: violations of the law have consequences and no one should benefit from them,” Houareau says.

Following the unfavorable ruling, Uberspace expressed disappointment with the court’s decision. Owner Jonas Pasche indicated that he is currently consulting with legal counsel to evaluate the viability of further appeals, but a final determination has not yet been reached.

Uberspace’s owner previously informed us that he was willing to fight the matter up to the highest court possible. If the current verdict stands, it’s a threat to all hosting companies, he argued.

“The consequences of this will be that hosting providers receiving complaints will most likely kick out their customers without a court ruling, for things that might be perfectly legal,” Pasche previously told us.

GitHub Hosts Youtube-dl Now

Interestingly, youtube-dl remains online. Uberspace was required to take the website offline last summer , facing a potential a fine of €250,000 or jail time.

At the moment, the YouTube download tool uses GitHub as its main hosting location. In addition to the code repository, the developers also have a GitHub hosted website on the platform.

The current youtube-dl website doesn’t differ much from the one that was hosted by Uberspace . Both have a rather minimalist look, as Tarnkappe notes. Whether the record labels intend to go after GitHub now is unknown. But that won’t be an easy fight.

GitHub previously concluded that the code doesn’t violate the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions, so it’s not likely to take any action without the involvement of a U.S. court.

“We are taking a stand for developers and have reinstated the youtube-dl repo. Section 1201 of the DMCA is broken and needs to be fixed. Developers should have the freedom to tinker. That’s how you get great tools like youtube-dl,” GitHub CEO Nat Friedman said at the time.

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

In 2019, Internet provider Cox Communications lost its legal battle against a group of dozens of record labels, including Sony and Universal.

Following a two-week trial, a Virginia jury held Cox liable for its pirating subscribers. The ISP failed to disconnect repeat infringers and was ordered to pay $1 billion in damages .

This case is one of many . Other ISPs have been accused of being similarly lax in their stance against alleged piracy. Rightsholders believe that ISPs are motivated by profit while the ISPs typically argue that they shouldn’t be held liable for the alleged wrongdoing of subscribers.

Landmark Piracy Battle

Cox challenged the verdict through several routes and in August, filed a petition at the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to hear the case. The Internet provider stressed that the current verdict ‘jeopardizes’ internet access for all Americans.

Around the same time, the music companies filed their own petition , hoping to strengthen the verdict at the Supreme Court. Specifically, the record labels argued that the ISP should also be held liable for vicarious copyright infringement.

Both petitions essentially boil down to questions on liability. Are ISPs liable for copyright infringement if they don’t disconnect subscribers accused of copyright infringement? And can ISPs be held liable for infringing subscribers, even if they don’t directly profit from their activities?

Supreme Court Shows Interest

These writs of certiorari ask the Supreme Court to clarify how current law should be interpreted. The Supreme Court typically has a high barrier to accept new cases but, once greenlighted, they could shape the law for decades to come.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court suggested that it is indeed interested in the questions. In an order where dozens of petitions were denied, those submitted by Cox and the music companies were referred to the Solicitor General.

“The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in these cases expressing the views of the United States,” the brief comment reads.

The Solicitor General is a high-ranking official in the U.S. Department of Justice who serves as the federal government’s primary lawyer before the Supreme Court. In the present cases, it can express the government’s position on the presented legal questions.

The referral signals that the Supreme Court considers the case to have significant implications for the federal government or federal law. If the Department of Justice agrees, it is more likely that the Supreme Court will take on these cases.

What’s the U.S. Government’s View?

While it’s clear that the Supreme Court is interested in these cases, the Solicitor General’s view is unknown. Thus far, the government has mostly stayed on the sidelines in these matters.

The most concrete suggestion came in 2020, when the U.S. Copyright Office released a report calling for clearer standards on what constitutes “reasonable implementation” of a repeat infringer policy. The perceived lack of clarity has led to inconsistent practices and legal uncertainty.

Those types of legislative changes are typically something that Congress should determine, but the Supreme Court can help to shape the legal interpretation of the DMCA as we know it today.

With hundreds of millions of dollars in damages on the line, a Supreme Court opinion is poised to provide some additional clarity in the ongoing DMCA “repeat infringer” controversy.

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