In recent years, rightsholders of major sports events have repeatedly complained that piracy of live sports is getting out of hand.

Increasingly, lawmakers and law enforcement were asked to help out. This week, these calls were heard.

247TVStream Shutdown and Indictment

The Department of Justice for the Eastern District of New York announced that it had effectively shut down a major pirate IPTV streaming operation, 247TVStream. The service was allegedly owned and operated by two brothers, Noor Nabi Chowdhury and Mohammad Mahmudur Rahman.

Chowdhury, who’s a New York resident, was arrested on Tuesday and arraigned in the New York court on the same day. His brother Rahman allegedly resides in Bangladesh and remains at large.

The men were charged with four counts; conspiracy to provide to the public an illicit digital transmission service, providing an illicit digital transmission service; conspiracy to commit wire fraud; and aggravated identity theft.

1000+ Channels

247TVStream was a subscription streaming service that offered illegal access to live television and sports programming. The service had over 1,000 television channels and was specifically targeted at sports fans.

These pirated channels could be viewed via dedicated devices or Android and iOS apps such as the ‘247 IPTV Player’, for streaming on the go.

“247tvstream.com is a place where sports fans can watch live sports online around the world with an alternative way from the comfort of their PC/Laptop/Smartphone/Tablets or SmartTV,” the service explained in its FAQ.

$7 Million in Subscription Fees

The authorities say that the service had been in operation since May 2017 and caused more than $100 million in damages to copyright holders. The pirate service itself also generated substantial revenues during this time; over $7 million in subscriber fees according to the indictment.

These revenues, typically $10 per month, partially went through payment processors which were presumably unaware of the nature of the business. The operators also made efforts to conceal their true identities through shell companies and false documents.

“To conceal the true nature of 247TVStream, Chowdhury and Rahman falsely described, and caused to be falsely described, the nature of 247TVStream and the identity of its owners on applications to the Merchant Processors,” the indictment reads.

Working with Dutch and UK law enforcement agencies, authorities seized the servers that hosted 247TVStream’s illegal content. They also seized the domain names tvschedule24.com and 247tvstream.com, which now display a banner announcing the seizure.

“The domain has been seized by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations in accordance with a seizure warrant issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981, 982, 1030, and 2323 by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,” it reads.

Multi-Year Prison Sentences

Commenting on the news, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Breon Peace, thanked Canadian, Dutch, and UK partners for their cooperation. He is pleased with the outcome thus far.

“My Office and the Department of Justice are committed to protecting the rights of intellectual property holders from digital pirates like these defendants,” Peace notes.

After his arraignment on Tuesday, Chowdhury was released from custody with the bond set at $25,000. Rahman has yet to be apprehended.

The brothers could face decades behind bars if convicted on all charges. The penalties for their alleged crimes include a maximum of 20 years for wire fraud, five years for conspiracy related to the illegal streaming service, and a mandatory two-year sentence for identity theft, all of which could be served consecutively.

—-

A copy of the indictment, released by the Department of Justice for the Eastern District of New York, is available here (pdf)

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

In September, Apple removed the popular music streaming app Musi from its App Store. The delisting is significant, as the app has 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.

Music group IFPI took the lead, calling on other music industry players and YouTube to complain to Apple as well. This mounting pressure eventually paid off.

The delisting puts the future of Musi directly at risk. The company initially hoped to resolve the matter with Apple behind closed doors. The tech giant was unwilling to reverse its decision, however, so the streaming app took the matter to court.

Musi Sues Apple over ‘YouTube-Triggered’ Removal

In a complaint filed at a California federal court last month, Musi sued Apple for breach of contract, as well as a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The music app believes that the delisting was unjustified and wants Apple to reinstate it immediately.

“Apple removed the Musi app based upon unsupported accusations from a third party who has failed to respond to Musi’s communications. Worse, Apple was fully aware that the third party had failed to substantiate its claims to Musi,” said the company behind the app.

The third-party in question is YouTube. According to Musi, Apple acted based on a five-word complaint from ‘YouTube Legal’ that was sent late July. Attempts by Musi to discuss the matter with YouTube remained unanswered, but Apple removed the app nonetheless.

Preliminary Injunction

For Musi, the matter amounts to an existential threat. The music app built its entire business on the iOS platform and without it being available in the App Store, the service will ultimately perish.

Faced with this conundrum, Musi requested a preliminary injunction to have the app reinstated as soon as possible. The removal has already caused irreparable harm, it argued, but a swift injunction can stop the bleeding.

“By removing the Musi app from its only viable distribution platform, Apple has exiled Musi from its customer base—thereby threatening the company’s survival,” Musi wrote.

“Musi is therefore entitled to a preliminary injunction to stop Apple from continuing to breach the Developer Agreement by refusing to list or otherwise making unavailable the Musi app.”

Apple Opposes Injunction

Apple responded in court last Friday, opposing Musi’s request for a preliminary injunction. The company argues that the terms of the Apple Developer Program License Agreement (DLPA) allow the company to delist apps “at any time, with or without cause.”

Aside from this contractual freedom, Apple also counters Musi’s allegation that it took action based on little more than a five word complaint from YouTube.

“That is false, and Musi knows that it is false,” Apple writes, mentioning a variety of other complaints, including those submitted by music group IFPI and the music publishers’ association NMPA.

The NMPA letter, for example, went beyond a simple complaint and detailed how Musi allegedly uses multiple free YouTube API-tokens to avoid paying licensing fees, while inserting its own ads.

Apple says it doesn’t take a position in the legal dispute between Musi, YouTube, and many of the other third parties that complained. However, the provided context suggests that the delisting isn’t the result of just one brief removal request.

‘Existential Exaggeration’

The opposition brief repeatedly stresses that Apple has the right to delist apps based on its own contracts. Even if that’s in doubt, there’s no need for a preliminary injunction.

Apple says that while new users can no longer download the app, existing Musi users are still able to use the installed app. This means that Musi can continue to generate revenue.

The app reportedly generated millions of dollars in advertising revenue per month in the past and there is no evidence that it is in financial trouble now, Apple argues.

“Musi provides no evidence relating to its financial condition and no evidence that it is unable to survive until a decision on the merits in this case,” Apple notes.

“In fact, public reporting suggests that Musi earned more than $100 million in advertising revenue between January 2023 and spring 2024 and employs ten people at most. If true […], Musi is not at imminent risk of extinction.”

All in all, Apple sees no reason for the court to grant the injunction. In addition to violating Apple’s rights, the proposed injunction also goes against the interests of all parties who complained that their rights are being infringed, the company notes.

Musi has yet to respond to Apple’s opposition. It is clear, however, that the app is fighting a legal battle that will be closely watched by rightsholders, YouTube, and many independent iOS developers.

—

A copy of Apple’s opposition to Musi’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed as the California federal court, is available here (pdf)

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

Under U.S. copyright law, Internet providers must terminate the accounts of repeat infringers “in appropriate circumstances”.

This legal requirement remained largely unenforced for nearly two decades but a series of copyright infringement liability lawsuits, with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, have shaken up the industry.

RIAA Labels vs. Altice

These piracy liability lawsuits have targeted large and small Internet providers across the United States. This includes Altice, which was sued by various parties in recent years both directly and indirectly as the owner of ISP Optimum.

This summer, Optimum settled its lawsuit with some music industry giants, including BMG, UMG, and Capitol Records, but that doesn’t mean its legal woes are over.

Last December, a group of nearly 50 music labels filed a similar yet separate ‘mass-infringement’ lawsuit against Altice. All members of the RIAA, these music companies claim the ISP is liable for copyright infringement, alleging that it failed to take action against repeat infringers on the “Optimum” network.

“Despite Altice’s stated policies and despite receiving tens of thousands of infringement notices concerning Plaintiffs’ works […] Altice knowingly permitted repeat infringers to continue to use its services to infringe,” the complaint read.

RIAA Denies Discovery Requests

Nearly a year has passed since the complaint was filed. Both parties are currently conducting discovery, seeking relevant evidence to support their arguments. For Altice, the RIAA is a key target, as the music industry group was involved in events that led up to the lawsuit.

To find out more, Altice subpoenaed the RIAA for what it believes is relevant information. The RIAA responded to the request, but refused to produce several documents, so Altice filed a motion at the federal court, asking it to compel the RIAA to comply.

The ISP is particularly interested in the RIAA’s dealings with anti-piracy vendor OpSec Online. The company was responsible for tracking subscribers’ piracy activity on BitTorrent networks and alerting the associated Internet providers, including Altice. These piracy notices were then used as evidence in the current lawsuit.

“According to Plaintiffs, OpSec’s system was used to detect all of the alleged downloads by Altice’s subscribers that serve as the basis for Plaintiffs’ secondary copyright infringement case against Altice,” the motion reads.

RIAA’s Dealings with OpSec

The RIAA reportedly responded with standard rejections to many of these requests. The music group agreed to hand over a copy of its 2019 agreement with OpSec, but rejected to share any other communications related to it.

According to Altice, this missing context is vital to its defense. It may reveal more about the accuracy and reliability of the piracy notices, for example, including details of potential errors and inaccurate notices.

In addition, the RIAA should also be required to share reports and other details that provide more insight into the scope and purpose of the piracy notice efforts.

“[T]he broader reports are relevant to, for example, (1) how many notices were sent to other ISPs, (2) how the RIAA directed OpSec to gather evidence of piracy from other ISPs, and (3) whether the RIAA had a strategy for bringing suits against the entire ISP industry, and, if so, its motivations for doing so,” Altice writes.

Along the same lines, the RIAA should also disclose about how much it paid OpSec for its services. The music industry group already shared payments between 2020 and 2023, but it should hand over older data too. That will help to establish OpSec’s credibility as a witness, Altice notes.

RIAA’s Other Enforcement Efforts

The remaining information mostly relates to other enforcement efforts. The RIAA is asked to explain how it selects the copyrighted works that are used as evidence in lawsuits, for example, and whether it chose to extend the protection of certain titles, while discarding others.

The RIAA has so far refused to share this information. The same also applies to details of any other enforcement options it considered, including actions against torrent sites and potential lawsuits against providers of file-sharing software.

“These requests are directly relevant to the RIAA’s motivations for pursuing actions against ISPS, like Altice, instead of taking action themselves to address online copyright infringement such as sending notices of infringement to torrent site aggregators […] or taking legal action against providers of peer-to-peer file-sharing technologies.”

Finally, Altice brings up the Copyright Alert System (CAS). This now-defunct voluntary agreement between rightsholders and Internet providers was previously used in an effort to deter infringement. Notably, this industry sanctioned model did not require ISPs to terminate subscriber accounts.

The music labels have sued Altice for its alleged failure to terminate accounts of repeat infringers, so this information is highly relevant to its defense, the company notes. Through the motion to compel, Altice hopes that the court will order the music group to comply.

At the time of writing, the RIAA has yet to respond to the motion. After that, the court is expected to issue a decision.

—

A copy of the motion to compel, as well as an associated request to transfer it to the Eastern District of Texas, is available here (pdf) .

Instant update: The motion is transferred to Texas (pdf) .

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

After eight years of unprecedented uptime and reliability, the collapse and eventual demise of pirate streaming giant FMovies looked much like the demise of any other.

Cracks first started to emerge in June 2024 when the site stopped updating with new content. A few weeks later in mid-July, FMovies disappeared entirely, without any explanation from its operators or indeed anyone else. An announcement at the end of August confirmed what many had suspected, however.

The Motion Picture Association (MPA) and anti-piracy coalition Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) revealed that they had collaborated with Hanoi Police to shut down the FMovies operation, which included ‘sister’ sites AniWave, Bflixz, Flixtorz, Movies7, and Myflixer.

According to ACE, the FMovies empire was the largest piracy ring in the world , attracting more than 6.7 billion visits between January 2023 and June 2024 alone. Charles Rivkin, MPA CEO and Chairman of ACE, described the dismantling of FMovies as “a stunning victory for casts, crews, writers, directors, studios, and the creative community across the globe.”

Authorities in Vietnam Break Silence

The MPA/ACE announcement late August contained praise for Vietnamese authorities but no official statement from them. Initial reports late August didn’t provide details on any arrests either, but it later transpired that two people connected to FMovies had been detained.

After more than two months of silence, local authorities have now released additional information on the investigation and the two men previously arrested. They also confirm that a decision has been made to prosecute the case and both suspects.

The Investigation and Identification of Suspects

Responding to allegations made by the Hollywood studios, the Economic Police Department, in coordination with departments of the Hanoi City Police, launched an investigation to confirm the suspects’ identities and relevant background information.

Police say that documents and other evidence was obtained to clarify the suspects’ operational methods and to confirm their roles in the FMovies operation.

Hanoi City Police now confirm the following:

• Suspect 1: Phan Thanh Cong, 34, is a resident of Mo Lao ward, Ha Dong district, Hanoi.

He is described as the “mastermind, leader, creator, operator, and manager” of the “FMovies website system” which allegedly offered almost 50,000 films to the public, in many cases violating MPA members’ rights.

Authorities also reveal that the suspect was “administratively disciplined for similar behavior” in the past, but the offending was not described in detail.

• Suspect 2: Nguyen Tuan Anh, also 34 and a resident of Mo Lao ward, Ha Dong district, Hanoi, is described as an accomplice/assistant.

It’s claimed he was responsible for illegally copying around 50,000 films and posting them to FMovies and its ‘sister’ websites. In many cases, this violated MPA members’ rights.

Other Findings of the Investigation

According to local police, the offending began in 2016, with the suspects illegally earning “hundreds of thousands of US dollars” before the operation was shut down in August 2024. The authorities claim that during questioning, both men confessed in full to all alleged crimes.

The Investigation Police Agency at Hanoi City Police says it has issued a decision to prosecute the case. Phan Thanh Cong and Nguyen Tuan Anh will be prosecuted for infringement of copyright and related rights under Clause 2, Section 225, Penal Code 2015. What that means for those arrested is currently unclear; the necessary details are yet to be released and almost everything turns on those details.

Commercial Scale Offending?

Section 225 relates to the unlawful copying and/or distribution of infringing copies of audiovisual works, without obtaining permission from rightsholders, on a ‘commercial scale’. That term is not clearly defined. Instead, indications are given in terms of illegal profits, such as VND 50,000,000 (just under $US2,000) or damage to rightsholders of VND 100,000,000 (just under US$4,000).

Profits of “hundreds of thousands of US dollars” does seem to qualify but any predictions on how things might eventually play out would be pure guesswork at this stage and most likely unhelpful.

The framework of penalties is complicated and varies according to the scale and nature of the offending, which isn’t straightforward either. Fines seeem to vary from VND 50,000,000 (just under US$2,000) to VND 300,000,000 (just under US$12,000) and a non-custodial sentence, up to VND 1,000,000,000 (just under US$395,000) and a custodial sentence of between six months and three years, depending on the presence of any specified aggravating factors.

Yet as Phan Thanh Cong apparently knows from experience, the authorities might prefer to impose administrative measures. We just don’t know and the information being made available right now is simply insufficient. It’s possible that MPA/ACE have a clearer idea, but it’s highly unlikely any public comments will be made during an ongoing prosecution.

Letter of Thanks Sent From U.S. to Vietnam

What happens moving forward in this process is clearly very important to the United States and the studios in particular.

A police video released in connection with the news above skims the following letter. We had to stitch it back together to make it readable, but the sentiment is clear; the United States is very grateful for the assistance and at least thus far, satisfied with the direction of the relationship and the case.

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

In late 2022, several of the world’s largest music companies including UMG, Warner 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.

The trial lasted more than two weeks and ended in a resounding victory for the labels. A Texas federal jury found Grande guilty of willful contributory copyright infringement, and the ISP was ordered to pay $47 million in damages to the record labels.

$47 Million Appeal

Grande was unhappy with the verdict and appealed. Internet providers shouldn’t be held liable for pirating customers based on third-party allegations, the company noted. This appeal was supported by several telecoms organizations which agreed that terminating accounts of suspected pirates is a drastic and overbroad remedy.

In addition to the liability aspect, Grande also protested the damages calculations. The jury calculated the damages per song, instead of per album, which is the wrong interpretation of U.S. law according to the ISP.

Last month, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a mixed order . The court confirmed that the ISP is liable for copyright infringement but upheld its concerns over damages. A new trial was issued to establish the lower damages award, on a per-album basis.

The Court agreed that, in this instance, awarding statutory damages on a per-song basis “would make a total mockery” of Congress’ mandate. If rightsholders would like this to change, they should ask Congress to change the law.

Record Labels Want Rehearing

UMG, Warner, Sony and the other labels agree with the finding on liability but object to the damages calculation since this substantially lowers the $47m award.

Last week, they filed a petition for a rehearing en banc . They argue that the Fifth Circuit’s decision on the damages’ calculation is too narrow.

The labels note that each song that was infringed is its own “work” under the Copyright Act, and that they are entitled to damages for each individual song.

Their argument is based on the “independent economic value” test, which asks whether the unit of expression has “independent economic value” to the copyright owner. If it does, then the copyright owner is entitled to statutory damages for the infringement of each copyrightable unit of expression.

In this case, songs can have individual value, whether they are part of an album or not. This notion is supported by the fact that most music is consumed via digital streaming platforms, which provide access to individual songs.

“In the digital era, streaming is the primary source of revenue and necessarily involves the commercialization of individual recordings,” the labels write.

Piracy Changed the Music Biz

The labels point out that there’s a certain irony in the Fifth Circuit’s decision. They note that rampant piracy was a primary reason the industry moved from selling physical albums to making individual downloads and streams available.

This means that statutory damages, which are supposed to compensate copyright owners and deter infringers, are based on the old “album” model, which has been disrupted by online piracy.

“Thus, the panel’s decision calculates statutory damages awards based on the remnants of a business model that digital piracy severely diminished,” the petition reads.

One Work?

In addition to the independent economic value test, the labels disagree with the court’s interpretation of Section 504(c)(1) of the Copyright Act, which states that all parts of a compilation constitute one work.

The Fifth Circuit held that albums are compilations, which should therefore be seen as a single work. However, the labels believe that this narrow interpretation only applies if the alleged copyright infringement is an album.

In this case, the labels alleged infringements of individual songs, not albums. Therefore, it should be appropriate to calculate damages per song, they argue.

“Thus, the panel’s rule serves no purpose other than to punish copyright owners for their decision to include their standalone works on compilations in addition to commercializing them individually,” the labels write.

This present lawsuit is based on alleged BitTorrent downloads. It’s not immediately clear whether these were only torrents for individual songs. However, the labels seem to suggest this is the case.

All in all, the music companies argue that there is sufficient reason for a rehearing. If the current verdict stands it will significantly harm their ability to combat rampant online piracy, they conclude.

—

A copy of the petition for a rehearing en banc, which was submitted at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals last week, is available here (pdf) .

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

The potential consequences of being associated with any aspect of a pirate IPTV operation are well known. Criminal action rarely ends well for defendants, with similar outcomes seen in private prosecutions and most civil copyright lawsuits.

However, since the odds of being investigated and subsequently prosecuted are still relatively low, there’s no shortage of people willing to roll the dice in the hope of hitting the jackpot – and keeping it.

But while some embark on a journey of meticulous anonymity, supported by knowledge of geographical complications that make others vastly easier to pursue, some prefer different approaches. These can also work quite well, at least until they don’t.

New Piracy Lawsuit filed in the U.S.

Filed at a federal court in Illinois, the complaint sees DISH Network and Sling TV target Richard Moy, the alleged owner of CLVPN LLC, which ordinarily does business as City Lights Entertainment .

According to the plaintiffs’ investigation, Illinois-based Moy claimed that his IPTV reselling business was ‘USA based’ and he personally controlled the content it allegedly made available. Advertised as a “top notch” service, in which Moy had invested considerable sums of money obtaining servers and streams, subscriptions were sold both in bulk to a network of resellers or on a singular basis direct to consumers.

The Plaintiffs cite Moy’s claim of having “over 500 sellers” in the market, but the number of subscribers isn’t a rough estimate. How DISH and Sling obtained direct access to Moy’s IPTV management panel isn’t revealed in the complaint, but it’s alleged that after seeing data for themselves, they concluded that the service had over 450,000 users.

A one-month subscription purchased direct cost customers $20. Resellers were charged just a quarter of that, ensuring that they were able to return a profit after accounting for costs. The complaint claims that Moy, at least according to his own recollection, also acted as a channel supplier to other IPTV providers.

Operations Exposed

The complaint alleges that payments for the City Lights Entertainment (CLE) service were processed through Moy’s company, CLVPN LLC. Payments were accepted through Venmo, Cash App, and PayPal, some under Moy’s real name and others under aliases including “PapitoPatron” and “PapitoChacon.” A Venmo account linked to CLE recorded over 1,700 transactions, the plaintiffs note.

“Moy instructed purchasers to disguise the purpose of their payments by claiming the payments were being sent to ‘Friends NOT [for] Services’,” the complaint reads. On various Telegram groups used in connection with the IPTV service, Moy operated under the alias ‘Holmes’ and the username ‘@PapitoPatron.’ Another ‘disguise’ allegedly deployed by Moy was much more unorthodox.

“Moy held himself out as a Chicago-area law enforcement officer when selling the Service,” the lawsuit adds, referencing the images below.

“Moy’s resellers were informed that he was a law enforcement officer and that message was spread in the Telegram groups, including by group moderators working for Moy. On information and belief, Moy used his alleged association with law enforcement to market the Service to users and resellers and mitigate potential concerns over the unlawfulness of the Service,” the plaintiffs note

Other measures to avoid legal repercussions included a ban on resellers displaying “videos or pictures of channel lineups” of Moy’s service on social media, and the avoidance of “red flag keywords” such as “Tv Service… IPTV, Streams, Cable etc.”

Moy allegedly alerted resellers to legal actions against other streaming services and offered advice on how best to acquire their customers. The plaintiffs claim that Moy referred to himself and his resellers as “silent assassins.”

Claims for Relief Under the DMCA

Count I alleges violations of the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2) , which concerns circumvention of technical measures. The approach has proven successful for DISH and Sling and now appears in most reseller lawsuits.

Count II alleges violations of the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(b)(1), which prohibits the manufacture, sale, and distribution of devices that have no commercially significant purpose or use other than circumventing technical measures.

Claim for Relief Under ECPA

Count III alleges violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which prohibits interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications. The plaintiffs allege violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(1)(c)-(d) which occur when a person –

• (c) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication…

• (d) intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication…

While not usually seen alongside alleged violations of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions, inclusion here suggests that the plaintiffs believe there is sufficient evidence to show that a live stream was intercepted. The interpretation of “live stream” under ECPA concerns interception of a real-time transmission, rather than a stream of a live event.

At least to our knowledge, this may be a new approach by the plaintiffs. However, the civil recovery available under 2520(a) does seem to align with existing strategy.

Claims for Damages

For Counts I and II, the plaintiffs request statutory damages of up to $2,500 for each violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2) and § 1201(b)(1). Should their claim of 450,000 subscribers pass muster, in theory statutory damages could reach $1,125,000,000. An award of that scale seems highly unlikely under the circumstances but could still be significant.

Statutory damages for ECPA violations are almost negligible in comparison; $100 per day of violation or $10,000, whichever is greater.

The complaint makes no mention of how long the alleged offending lasted, while references to the business are made in the past tense, which may suggest it no longer exists. If the alleged offending went on for a year, statutory damages could in theory reach a relatively modest $36,500.

Insufficient Facts to Determine Actual Damages

The plaintiffs may prefer actual damages and the defendant’s profits instead, added to the punitive damages they’re claiming under 18 U.S.C. § 2520(b)(2) for the ECPA violations, of course. Without access to specific details, such as the length of the alleged offending and how much profit was made, it’s not possible to estimate the scale of any damages.

These details aren’t provided in the complaint, nor does the complaint mention any prior communication with the defendant, such and cease-and-desist notices, that type of thing. Yet in a sentence that stands out primarily for not explaining how the plaintiffs gained access to the IPTV service’s main panel, the exact number of subscribers is revealed as 450,000.

Whether further details will emerge as part of a case contested on the merits remains to be seen, but a smooth conclusion here with damages for ECPA violations intact, may come in useful at a later date.

The complaint is available here (pdf)

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

Tracking BitTorrent pirates isn’t all that hard since IP addresses are openly broadcasted. With help from Internet providers, these addresses can then be linked to account holders.

ISPs don’t hand over this data voluntarily; they typically require a subpoena or court order before taking action.

In the United States, subpoenas are typically obtained by filing a copyright complaint in federal court against a “John Doe” who’s known only by an IP address. Most of these cases are filed against a single person, which makes it a relatively expensive process.

DMCA Shortcut

In recent years, some rightsholders have used a shortcut to bypass this costly process. Drawing inspiration from the RIAA’s early efforts to identify music pirates in the early 2000s, they use the DMCA subpoena process to obtain the personal details of suspected copyright infringers.

Unlike regular subpoenas, the DMCA equivalents are not reviewed by a judge and only require a signature from the court clerk. While several courts effectively banned the practice two decades ago, more recent attempts cite fresh interpretations and conflicting case law to support their requests.

Many courts granted these new requests, which required Internet providers to identify hundreds, if not thousands of alleged pirates.

Cox Successfully Intervenes

Most of these recent DMCA subpoenas progressed quietly, with little fanfare or pushback. That changed last year when a Cox subscriber, suspected of pirating the movie Fall , filed an objection in court.

The objection prompted Cox Communications to intervene. The Internet provider decided to challenge the use of the DMCA subpoena tool, as detailed in DMCA §512(h) . Similar to the earlier opposition against RIAA’s attempts, the ISP argued that DMCA subpoenas don’t apply to mere conduit providers, as defined under § 512(a).

Earlier this year, a district court judge in Hawaii sided with Cox. The court ruled that DMCA subpoenas don’t apply to mere conduit services, but do apply to other providers that store or link to infringing content directly. As such, the movie companies’ request for a subpoena was denied .

The rightsholders in this matter, film companies Voltage Holdings, Millennium Funding, and Capstone Studios, swiftly submitted a motion for reconsideration. Among other things, they countered that ISPs are not just ‘mere conduits’, since they can remove or disable ‘references or links’ to infringing content.

The Hawaii district court reviewed the opposition, but eventually ruled that the ‘DMCA shortcut’ will remain closed.

Movie Companies Take Case to Court of Appeals

The movie companies are not letting this issue go that easily. A few days ago, they filed a petition at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the district court’s interpretation of the DMCA was overly narrow and hinders their efforts to combat online piracy.

The 81-page petition presents a wide array of arguments. The movie studios argue that the district court’s interpretation, which relies on dated precedents, doesn’t reflect the realities of the modern Internet. They note that ISPs do play a role in facilitating piracy, even if indirectly, and should be subject to DMCA subpoenas.

“A careful reading of the full text of 17 U.S.C. §512 leads to the unquestionable conclusion that Congress intended for DMCA subpoenas to apply to §512(a) service providers despite the contrary conclusions of Verizon and Charter,” the petition reads.

Key Questions

The appeal touches on various DMCA nuances and how these have been interpreted by courts. Ultimately, two key questions are presented.

First, whether DMCA subpoenas can apply to residential ISPs under §512(a) and second, can ISPs be seen as information location tools. These fall under §512(d), which could make an ISP subject to DMCA subpoenas.

(1) Can a valid subpoena under 17 U.S.C. §512(h) be issued commanding a §512(a) residential Internet service provider (“ISP”) to identify subscribers that use the ISP’s service to share copies of pirated copyright protected content online to the entire world via the BitTorrent peer-to-peer network?

(2) Is a residential ISP a provider of information location tools as defined in §512(d) when it provides a subscriber with customer premise equipment (modems and/or residential gateways) and assigns the subscriber an Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses and links other users to the subscribers’ assigned IP addresses where the subscriber shares pirated copies of copyright protected Works via the BitTorrent peer-to-peer network?

The first question zooms in on the statutory language of the DMCA which, according to the movie companies, suggests that Congress intended DMCA subpoenas to apply to ‘mere conduit’ providers too.

For example, it mentions that §512(e) of the DMCA, which applies to educational institutions, explicitly conditions that a §512(a) service provider should not receive more than two §512(c)(3)(A) notifications within three years.

The District Court, however, concluded that these notifications don’t apply to §512(a) providers because there is no material to take down. That’s a clear conflict, the movie companies note.

Alternative Angle

The second key question is whether ISPs such as Cox operate as information location tools under §512(d). That would make DMCA subpoenas a valid instrument as well. The petition argues that this applies directly to Cox.

“Cox assigns the IP addresses that are used by its subscribers to share pirated copies of Fall online. Cox links other users to the online location to obtain copies of Fall when it routes their data to and from that IP address. Accordingly, Cox is a §512(d) service provider.”

To support this angle, the rightsholders add that Cox can take technical measures in response to infringing activity.

“Cox can use measures to disable the link to the infringing material such as null routing the IP addresses, blocking the ports associated with BitTorrent activity from the subscribers’ endpoint, or filtering the BitTorrent content from the subscriber’s endpoint,” the petitions reads.

Landmark Appeal

The above is just a brief overview of some of the angles, questions, and arguments laid out in the petition. Much of it goes into great detail on the various DMCA sections, how these are linked, and what that means for the present case.

Whether the court agrees that there’s a statutory conflict has yet to be seen. However, the stakes are significant. If rightsholders can identify alleged pirates more easily, enforcement will likely ramp up.

Cox has yet to respond to the appeal. When it does, the ISP’s response will likely be mindful of the Supreme Court petition it filed in a separate copyright-related case, where a jury held the ISP liable for pirating subscribers.

—-

A copy of the petition, filed by Voltage Holdings, Millennium Funding, and Capstone Studios is available here (pdf) .

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

As Donald Trump used every available resource to ensure his tenancy at the most recognizable house in the United States was extended, some social media platforms had adopted an unorthodox approach to his accounts.

Despite receiving a number of takedown notices alleging copyright infringement in Trump’s tweets, and in some cases removing content in response to apparently valid claims, the president’s account wasn’t suspended or terminated as is often the case.

That allowed one of Trump’s team to post a tweet containing a short animation; a train sporting Trump’s campaign logo being pursued at some distance by rival Joe Biden on a railroad handcar failing to keep up. For reasons that remain unknown, the animator chose the 1982 hit ‘Electric Avenue’ by British singer-songwriter Eddy Grant as the animation’s soundtrack.

The animator didn’t ask Grant for permission and when the Trump team spotted the animation on Twitter, a decision was made to post it on Trump’s Twitter account, also without asking Grant for permission. Grant responded with a cease and desist notice and when that was ignored, Grant sued Trump and his team for copyright infringement.

Judge’s Opinion Was Just His Opinion?

In an ideal world, the failure of Trump’s motion to dismiss in September 2021 should’ve been seen as an opportunity to settle the case privately.

A very small slice of humble pie and some tea, perhaps, so that everyone could move on. Or even negotiating the terms of the settlement Grant offered in August 2020 before filing the lawsuit.

Instead, U.S. District Judge John Koeltl’s opinion and order, which painted a clear picture of how successful a fair use defense was likely to be in this matter, appears to have carried little weight with the defense. That was surprising.

Judge Koeltl had described the use of Electric Avenue as “wholesale copying” to support a political ad campaign, and noted that the defense had misunderstood “the focus of the transformative use inquiry.” The defense had also admitted that the animation was not fair use-friendly parody, but its less useful cousin, satire.

Judge Koeltl went to state that the defense had offered no justification at all for their “extensive borrowing” nor had they provided any evidence that use of the work had caused no market harm. In fact, such was the total disconnect between the use of Electric Avenue and the animation, the campaign could’ve chosen any other track, or indeed no track at all, to send the same message.

Four Year Legal Grind

What the defense were hoping to find isn’t clear but after failing to convince the court in October 2021 that Trump had “ Presidential absolute immunity ” in respect of Grant’s claims, the case dragged on for another three years, four years in total.

Exactly a year ago, September 15, 2023, the plaintiffs and defendants filed motions for summary judgment at a Manhattan federal court. The defendants informed the court that they would rely on a fair use defense, despite Grant’s legal team asserting that discovery had “revealed unequivocally” that the use of Electric Avenue was not transformative.

Fair Use Defense Fails, Defense Liable for Infringement

Judge Koeltl had formed the same opinion two years earlier and in an opinion and order dated September 13, 2024, he offers a reminder of his order handed down several years earlier.

“In an Opinion and Order dated September 28, 2021, this Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The parties have now filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment,” Judge Koeltl notes.

The Trump defendants asked the Court to dismiss part of the complaint based on their assertion that Grant lacked a valid copyright registration for the sound recording of “Electric Avenue.” The details are convoluted, but the bottom line straightforward; defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Oral argument was heard on September 6 and in his order, Judge Koeltl reveals that the plaintiffs’ motion is granted. The defendants are liable for damages because their fair use defense comprehensively fails.

Fair Use Analysis

“In this case, the Video has a very low degree of ‘transformativeness,’ if any at all. As this Court found in denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Video ‘is best described as a wholesale copying of music to accompany a political campaign ad’,” Judge Koeltl notes, citing his opinion from 2021.

“The defendants also argue that the Video ‘transformed Grant’s original conception of Electric Avenue as a protest against social conditions into a colorful attack on the character and personality traits of a rival political figure’. Again, ‘the defendants’ argument misapprehends the focus of the transformative use inquiry.'”

The inquiry does not focus exclusively on the character of the animation, the Judge notes. Rather, “it focuses on the character of the animation’s use of Grant’s song.”

The defendants claimed that their use of the work gave them “no commercial advantage” but the Judge disagreed.

In this case, the defendants benefited commercially from using Electric Avenue without paying a licensing fee. While there was no direct profit motive, that was insufficient to overcome the lack of transformative use and the first fair use factor favoring Grant.

A Fair Use Full House For Grant

Once again citing his opinion and order from 2021, the Judge notes that the defendants conceded that Electric Avenue is a creative, published work, leading to the second factor favoring Grant.

The third fair use factor considers the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. This inquiry was also present in the opinion from 2021; in 2024, nothing has changed and still favors Grant.

The fourth factor asks “whether, if the challenged use becomes widespread, it will adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work.” In this matter the Judge writes that there is no public benefit as a result of the defendants’ use of Electric Avenue; they could’ve used any song, even created their own, or used no song at all.

“The plaintiffs’ ability to license “Electric Avenue” in the market for licensed music for videos—political or otherwise—would be affected by widespread, uncompensated use. Accordingly, the last fair use factor favors the plaintiffs,” Judge Koeltl concludes.

That leaves the question of damages; Grant previously requested $300,000, but it’s likely the defense will have done their own calculations and arrived at a vastly lower sum.

Judge Koeltl’s opinion and order can be found here (pdf)

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

Next Thursday, September 19, 2024, will mark the one-year anniversary of the raids on French datacenters that brought down file-hosting platform Uptobox.

Founded in 2011, Uptobox was a very popular site with over 34 million visits per month, a third of which were generated by French users. After being blocked by ISPs in mid-2023, enforcement action became more likely than not.

Around 20 police officers participated in the raids on cloud service providers Scaleway, OpCore, and OVH. Members of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, including Columbia, Paramount, StudioCanal, Warner Bros, Disney, Apple, and Amazon, later confirmed that their complaint triggered the raids and the subsequent seizure of Uptobox servers.

Fighting Back

Unlike some other platforms accused of piracy, Uptobox has thus far bucked the trend of disappearing in response to a lawsuit, with Dubai-based owner Genius Servers Tech FZE (Genius) fully engaged in the legal process.

In April 2024, Uptobox attempted to have the entire case thrown out, arguing it wasn’t the piracy haven the plaintiffs were describing.

In a setback for Uptobox, the attempt ultimately failed, but owner Genius still hoped to have various seizure orders, that had granted the removal of its servers back in 2023, lifted by the court.

The company argued on various grounds, including that the seizures weren’t warranted due to the activities of Genius, and were a “manifestly disproportionate measure” that caused damage to Genius and users of the Uptobox service.

The plaintiffs presented a laundry list of objections, all of which are detailed in the order of the Paris court linked below. Ultimately, however, the appeal would run out of steam for reasons unrelated to the merits of the case.

Time Waits For No One

The decision handed down by the Paris judicial court on Thursday was first reported by Marc Rees at l’Informé; as he explains , Genius Servers’ efforts failed after the court ruled its requests inadmissible.

In a nutshell, demands by Genius to lift the seizure order and restore the servers were declared “time-barred” because they were simply filed too late.

The seizures were authorized in eight separate orders which targeted the headquarters and premises of Scaleway, Op Core and OVH. The only timely request by Genius concerned the seizures carried out at Scaleway. Subsequent requests in February 2024 encompassed Op Core and OVH, but the deadline had long since passed, having expired in October 2023.

The failed process is an expensive one for Genius. The court instructed the Dubai-based company to pay 8,000 euros in legal costs to each of the rightsholder claimants, to a total of 70,000 euros. The main case, whatever that may hold moving forward, will now continue.

The order of the Paris judicial court is available here (pdf)

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