After being sued by DISH Network in 2021, former Nitro TV operators Alex Galindo, Anna Galindo, Martha Galindo, and Osvaldo Galindo, made no real attempt to fight the lawsuit.

Why that decision was taken is still unknown, but court records suggest that throwing money away on a case that couldn’t be won might be one of the possibilities. The downside is that the plaintiffs went completely unchallenged, including when they requested and received a damages award in excess of $100 million last June .

Cash Disappeared, House Remained

After receiving the green light, DISH began searching for the defendants’ assets, including more than $10 million generated by the Nitro TV service.

Four banks that had received deposits of more than $9 million complied with disclosure requests; two reported no active accounts, one confirmed a $49.00 balance, and the final account was in the red.

Finding the cupboard bare, DISH moved in on the defendants’ house in Friendswood, Texas.

Since the property might qualify for homestead protection, DISH presented evidence to the court to show that Nitro TV subscription revenue was used to pay for the house. With the defendants entirely absent from the legal process, the court ordered the United States Marshal Service to levy and sell the property.

Out of nowhere, the defendants suddenly decided that wasn’t going to happen.

The House is Off Limits

In a motion to alter or amend the judgment “to prevent a clear error or manifest injustice,” counsel for Alex Galindo explained that his client bought the house in Friendswood in March 2020 and declared it his home.

“The Texas Constitution provides special protections for the homestead separate and distinct from protections afforded other types of property,” the motion reads.

“Because constitutional homestead rights protect citizens from losing their homes, statutes relating to homestead rights are liberally construed to protect the homestead.”

DISH evidence linked 99% of the house purchase price to sales of illegal IPTV subscriptions. The company argued that homestead protection is not available when a property is purchased with wrongfully acquired funds.

To support that claim, DISH cited another case – Deluxe Barber School, LLC and Bonifice I. Mbaka – but according to counsel for Galindo, an important detail means that his house still enjoys protection.

No Money Was Stolen

In a nutshell, Deluxe Barber involved a foreclosure on a property that was purchased with stolen cash. The strong suggestion here is that since the cash at issue in the Nitro case wasn’t stolen and wasn’t earned by DISH, Deluxe Barber is unhelpful to the broadcaster.

“[T]hese funds were never possessed, or even earned, by the Plaintiffs. There is no evidence that such funds belonged to the Plaintiffs or that Defendants stole or wrongfully acquired funds directly from Plaintiffs,” the motion reads.

The 99% figure is also important, the motion adds. It argues that since the account used to buy the property contained personal funds and money “potentially earned” from legitimate transactions, just one percent of legitimate funding would mean homestead rights under the Texas Constitution, especially since Texas courts “liberally construe statutes” relating to homestead rights.

Predictably, DISH sees things quite differently.

DISH: Don’t Undo The Correct Decision

In calling for the motion to be dismissed, DISH cites the history of the lawsuit, using the Court’s own words to state its position. The defendants operated an “illegal streaming service called Nitro TV, through which the defendants pirated the plaintiffs’ television programming and sold that content to Nitro TV’s subscribers,” the court’s judgment reads.

The Court also handed down a statutory damages award of $100,363,000 – the defendants didn’t challenge the award in June 2022, and they aren’t challenging it now, DISH adds. Furthermore, the defendants were served with a motion relating to the house in October 2022, and a month later after receiving no response, the Court found that the property does not warrant homestead protection.

“Defendants moved the Fifth Circuit to stay the sale of the Friendswood Property – making essentially the same arguments raised here – and that motion was denied,” DISH notes.

“Defendants’ motion for reconsideration should likewise be denied as there are no grounds warranting the extraordinary remedy of reconsideration and, even if reconsidered, the Court’s Order allowing the sale of the Friendswood Property is supported by the undisputed facts and well-established Texas law.”

The Money Wasn’t Stolen But Fraud Works Too

Addressing Galindo’s assertion that stolen money wasn’t used to buy the house, DISH draws attention to “analogous Florida laws” where homestead protection did not apply because funds were “fraudulently obtained.” Furthermore, if the house was indeed a homestead, it wasn’t designated as such for tax purposes.

“Defendants fail to show entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of reconsideration. Defendants’ motion to alter or amend the Court’s Order authorizing the U.S. Marshal to levy and sell the Friendswood Property and apply the proceeds towards the satisfaction of Plaintiffs’ judgment should be denied in all respects,” DISH concludes.

Galindo’s motion to alter/amend and the DISH response can be found here ( 1 , 2 , 3 pdf)

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

In a September 2022 blog post, YouTube’s Global Head of Music revealed that in the 12 months between July 2021 and June 2022, YouTube paid over $6 billion to the music industry.

Trade groups, including IFPI and the RIAA, believe the return should be even greater.

So-called ‘stream-ripping’ services typically use YouTube as a source while allowing users to keep copies of copyright tracks on their devices. According to IFPI’s Engaging With Music Report 2022 ( pdf ) , an estimated 27% of Indian music consumers obtain music this way.

India’s Music Piracy Problem

An IFPI announcement published yesterday focuses on India’s piracy problem. The industry group says that while Indian consumers have access to more licensed digital services than ever before, three-quarters of internet users use unlicensed or illegal ways to listen to music in the country. That statement deserves nuance.

While around three-quarters of internet users do obtain content illegally, 88% of Indian music consumers use licensed streaming services too. That’s an impressive level of penetration overall, but IFPI would much prefer it if users consumed all of their content legally. For that to happen, India’s stream-ripping habit needs to be addressed.

Sony, Universal and Warner Take Legal Action

IFPI’s announcement followed the publication of a ruling handed down by the High Court in Delhi on January 12, 2023. The case, Sony Music Entertainment India Private Limited & Ors. vs. YT1S.COM, YT1S.PRO, YT1S.DE & ORS. , aims to reduce stream-ripping piracy by compelling India’s internet service providers to block popular stream-ripping platforms.

“The ruling, which was published by the Delhi High Court today, requires ISPs in India to block access to 20 stream ripping sites, disrupting one of the most prominent forms of music piracy in the country,” IFPI’s announcement reads.

The ruling made available by the High Court mentions three domains specifically. Yt1s.com enjoys around 18 to 20 million monthly visits, while the apparently connected yt1s.de reaches around two million. Yt1s.pro is a distant runner-up with less than 20,000 visits per month.

No further domains appear in the ruling itself, but the court mentions 18 defendants “on the basis of their domain IDs.”

High Court Informed About Stream-Ripping

Justice C Hari Shankar’s ruling begins by noting that the plaintiffs are copyright holders, meaning that any entity that transmits, broadcasts, or reproduces their recordings without permission, violates India’s Copyright Act.

“[The stream-ripping sites] provide services whereby copyrighted content on various platforms, primarily YouTube, could be downloaded in MP3 or MP4 format by copying the YouTube link in the space provided in the website. This phenomenon, [Counsel for the plaintiffs] submits, is known as ‘stream ripping’,” the Judge notes.

The labels informed the court that since the stream-rippers mask their WHOIS details, it would be impossible to pursue them in separate proceedings. That’s important for rightsholders seeking a dynamic injunction, which the labels are in this case.

Are Stream-Ripping Services ‘Rogue Sites’?

The Judge says that the plaintiffs describe the stream-ripping platforms as “rogue sites.” When defendants are labeled as such, that puts plaintiffs in a strong position, but does it apply in this case?

The term ‘rogue site’ was defined during a blocking case involving torrent site 1337x.to. Very broadly, if the primary purpose of a site is to infringe, the owner fails to respond to takedown notices and has a general disregard for copyright, that’s usually considered a rogue site. Hiding WHOIS details also supports a ‘rogue site’ finding.

In this case, the labels are seeking a permanent injunction against the 18 stream-ripping platforms (or any other “mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites or any other iteration thereof”) to restrain them from “hosting, reproducing or otherwise making available to the public or facilitating the downloading of the content in which the plaintiffs own copyright.”

Justice Shankar states that based on the facts before him, the plaintiffs make out a prima facie case, one that justifies an interlocutory injunction to prevent further infringement.

This includes instructions for ISPs to block the domains in question, plus any new domains that may appear as a “mirror/redirect/alphanumeric avatar of the websites which already stand injuncted.”

The interim order can be found here (pdf). The next hearing is listed for Feb 22, 2023

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