Game publisher Epic Games has taken a tough stance against Fortnite cheaters.

Aside from banning people from the game, it has also filed lawsuits against several people who promoted or sold cheats online.

One of the most recent lawsuits targets a popular YouTuber called CBV, who was sued by Epic Games in June. The games company is pursuing the minor (referred to as C.B. in the complaint) with several claims, including copyright infringement and breaches of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision.

While plenty of kids would be terrified facing a lawsuit like this, CBV didn’t appear to be impressed. In a YouTube video where he explained the situation last month, the 14-year-old said that he wouldn’t make Fortnite videos anymore. However, he was far from apologetic.

“Fuck epic games. I mean, at least they can’t come after my channel anymore. I’m never gonna make another video. But if they really want to come at my neck for 100 Mil then they can just fuck their brand on their own,” CBV said.

The alleged cheater lawyered up and responded by filing a motion to dismiss at a North Carolina federal court Among other things, his attorneys pointed out that the Court doesn’t have jurisdiction over this client and that requiring a minor to defend himself in another state would be unreasonable.

This week Epic responded to this motion, arguing that the case should continue.

Among other things, the game publisher points out that CBV didn’t halt his cheating activities after the lawsuit was filed. On the contrary, Epic claims that the defendant made another cheating video on a separate channel and registered a new domain to sell cheats.

“Defendant continues to develop and sell cheat software specifically targeted at Epic and Fortnite. Indeed, Defendant has created a new website located at <NexusCheats.us>, a domain name Defendant registered on August 1, 2019,” Epic writes.

Epic, which doesn’t mention the name of the new channel, tells the Court that the defendant used it to promote his cheats. He published a video titled “Fortnite AIMBOT/WALLHACKS/**LIVE**(nexuscheats),” while taking questions and mentioning that he has a very good lawyer.

“Defendant did not stop his infringing behavior after being served with Epic’s Complaint and retaining legal counsel,” Epic writes. “In this 87-minute long video, Defendant announced it was his ‘first time streaming since I’ve been sued . . . .’ He then live-streamed himself logging into Fortnite and demonstrating his hacks as he played the game.”

The video has now been removed after Epic sent a DMCA notice. However, according to the game publisher, this shows that the teaching activities are not over.

While Epic’s reply focuses on the continued cheating, the main issue is whether there is a reason to dismiss the case. The defense argued that the EULA and the TOS, which prohibit cheating activities, are not enforceable because CBV is a minor. But Epic disagrees.

“His arguments that he is immune from those consequences, including his claim that this Court does not have jurisdiction over him because ‘he’s a kid,’ are without merit,” Epic tells the Court.

According to Epic, not all contracts with minors are automatically void. There are exceptions, which it believes apply here. In addition, this “infancy defense” doesn’t apply, because the alleged cheater also reaped the benefits of these agreements.

According to Epic’s response brief, the defendant was well aware of the potentially illegal nature of his activities – after being sued, banned and targeted with repeated DMCA notices – but he continued nonetheless.

“Not only did he continue to use his access to Fortnite to cheat at the game after being served with the Complaint, he continued to publish videos promoting and supporting his cheat software in violation of both Epic’s rights under the Copyright Act—which are the subject of this lawsuit—and the terms of the agreements that give Defendant access to Fortnite in the first place.”

Based on these and other arguments Epic says the motion to dismiss should be denied. The company also believes that specific jurisdiction exists to continue the case in Noth Carolina, even though the defendant is from Illinois.

If the Court decides that there is not enough ground to establish jurisdiction, Epic asks for limited discovery, so it can find more evidence. In the alternative, the game publisher asks to transfer the case to the Central
District of Illinois, where the alleged cheater resides.

—

A copy of Epic Games’ response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss is available here (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Minecraft is one of the most recognizable and popular videogames of the last decade.

Created by Swedish developer Markus Persson (Notch) and released by developer Mojang in 2011, Minecraft was subsequently acquired in 2014 by Microsoft as part of a $2.5 billion deal.

Over the years, Minecraft has been made available on many platforms and along the way has gathered millions of fans. Minecraft Classic is even available to play in a web browser by simply visiting Classic.Minecraft.net. However, a developer who had a similar idea recently received some unwanted correspondence from Microsoft.

Taiwan-based student and self-taught programmer Ian Huang has been working on MC.JS, a project which he also hoped would bring Minecraft to the web using Javascript.

“MC.JS brings the best-selling PC game Minecraft into the web with the power of Javascript,” Huang wrote in a now-deleted Github page.

“Having to open an additional app to play a game is sometimes too tiring. Therefore, I thought it’d be interesting to somehow implement Minecraft with Javascript, essentially bringing the whole Minecraft game onto the web,” he continued.

“This not only takes away the tedious process of installing the game, it also brings the entire game to players within a couple [of] clicks.”

While there many people out there who might appreciate such a project, the folks at Microsoft are not among them. Despite MC.JS being “a work in progress” with “still a lot of features waiting to be implemented”, the company took action to have it taken down.

In a DMCA notice sent to Github, where the project was hosted, brand protection and anti-piracy outfit AppDetex advised the development platform that MC.JS infringes several aspects of Microsoft’s intellectual property rights.

“The software being distributed on the reported site..[..]..violates these rights by providing users with an application that purports to act as a copy of Minecraft using javascript, encouraging users to provide their official Microsoft logins and circumvent Minecraft’s servers and logins for official gameplay,” the notice reads.

“On top of that, the download is being advertised with copyrighted Minecraft imagery and textures, acting as the backdrop to the site, without Microsoft’s consent or authorization. This is not an action protected by any fair use doctrine,” it continues.

The notice of infringement was sent under the DMCA (17 U.S.C. § 512) but also notes that Minecraft trademarks have been infringed. As a result, Github took down the project, which may or may not bring the effort to an end.

TorrentFreak contacted the developer of MC.JS for additional comment but at the time of publication, we were yet to receive a response.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Piracy is an intriguing phenomenon. On the one hand, it is seen as an existential threat by the entertainment industries. However, pirates are often heavy consumers of legal content as well.

Over the past several years, a vast array of studies have tried to determine to what extent piracy hurts legitimate revenue streams and, equally importantly, how it can be stopped.

There are no definitive answers but each study adds a small piece of the puzzle. One recent article, published by University of Amsterdam researchers João Pedro Quintais and Joost Poort, suggests that affordability and availability are key drivers.

The researchers analyzed a wealth of data and conducted surveys among 35,000 respondents, in thirteen countries. What they found was that, between 2014 and 2017, self-reported piracy rates have dropped in all the European countries that were surveyed, except Germany.

In a 70-page paper, published in American University International Law Review, the researchers try to pinpoint the most likely explanation for this decline, starting with enforcement.

In a detailed literature overview, the paper begins by discussing various enforcement activities, ranging from pirate site blockades, criminal enforcement, to civil suits against individual file-sharers. While some of these studies suggest that enforcement works, others reveal a limited effect or nothing at all.

This article doesn’t have space for a full review of all the literature, but the conclusion from the report’s authors is clear. Enforcement is not the silver bullet that will stop piracy.

“Despite the abundance of enforcement measures, their perceived effectiveness is uncertain. Therefore, it is questionable whether the answer to successfully tackling online copyright infringement lies in additional rights or enforcement measures,” the report notes.

Instead, the researchers believe that other factors are likely responsible for the decline in piracy rates. Specifically, they point to affordability and availability of legal content.

Through the extensive surveys, conducted in France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, UK, Brazil, Canada, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, and Thailand, they find several clues that this may indeed be the case.

Many of the data presented by the researchers have been published before. For example, they show that piracy rates are higher when the gross national income of a country is lower. This effect is particularly visible for lower incomes, as shown below.

The authors further observe a clear increase in spending on legal content where piracy rates dropped. In addition, they point to an earlier study that shows how music piracy declined in the Netherlands between 2008 and 2012, while piracy rates were still increasing for films and series. By 2012, Spotify had been introduced in the Netherlands (early 2010) but Nexflix not yet and HBO only just.

Based on their analysis, the researchers conclude that affordability and availability are indeed key drivers for declining piracy rates. In particular, they found no conclusive evidence that anti-piracy enforcement is effective.

“The main takeaway from our research is that online piracy is declining. The key driver for this decline is the increasing availability of affordable legal content, rather than enforcement measures,” their paper concludes.

When the conditions are right, people will eventually consume more content legally, it’s argued. This is also backed by the finding that 95% of the self-proclaimed pirates in their survey were legal consumers as well. Many of these turn to piracy due to lacking availability or high costs.

“Where the legal supply of content is affordable, convenient and diverse, there is increasing consumer demand for it. Under the right conditions, consumers are willing to pay for copyright-protected content and to
abandon piracy,” the paper reads.

This means that policymakers and copyright holders should direct their efforts more to the supply side, instead of enforcement activities.

“The crucial policy implication here is that policy makers should focus their resources and legislative efforts on improving those conditions. In particular, they ought to shift their focus from repressive approaches to tackle online infringement towards policies and measures that foster lawful remunerated access to copyright-protected content,” the researchers conclude.

This isn’t a new thought. Over the past several years, many people have hammered on the importance of appealing legal options. The new research confirms this. However, it is worth noting that the paper itself doesn’t provide any data showing that the recent drop in piracy is in fact caused by improved legal availability.

In other words, the empirical evidence doesn’t back either anti-piracy strategy conclusively.

For example, when we look at a graph of the piracy rates among legal users and the gross national income in different countries between 2014 and 2017 (shown above), we see that Sweden experienced the most pronounced piracy drop. However, there’s no clear change in legal availability compared to other countries, as far as we know.

TorrentFreak spoke to Joost Poort, one of the authors of the paper, who agreed that the lack of direct evidence is indeed a weak point. While there are several hints that the recent drop in piracy is mostly caused by better legal options, there is no hard data to back it up in this specific case.

Analyzing the effects of piracy is complicated, and there are signs that enforcement might also work in some cases. For example, just last week we reported on a study that showed how website blocking can motivate some pirates to sign up for a paid streaming service.

For many, however, it’s tempting to conclude that focusing on the carrot rather than the stick is the way forward.

That said, it’s also possible that the solution to piracy includes a little bit of both. While one may be more effective than the other, it’s safe to conclude that the puzzle isn’t solved yet.

—–

The full paper by João Pedro Quintais and Joost Poort titled: “The Decline of Online Piracy: How Markets – Not Enforcement – Drive Down Copyright Infringement”, is available here.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Unlicensed IPTV services are now billed as one of the biggest threats faced by producers of movies and television shows.

There are numerous cases pending against alleged operators of ‘pirate’ services actioned under copyright law.

However, in the United States, DISH Networks and NagraStar are increasingly using the Federal Communications Act to target companies and individuals who it claims are involved in the capture and subsequent rebroadcasting of its satellite signals via ‘pirate’ IPTV services.

The latest targets are One Box TV, LLC and alleged sole manager Donna Fogle, both of Florida. It’s alleged that One Box TV sold $19 per month IPTV subscriptions containing unlicensed DISH programming and Android-style boxes configured with the same features for around $275.

In common with another recent DISH case filed against unlicensed IPTV provider IPGuys, the broadcaster claims that it was able to use technical means determine that at least some of the content offered by One Box TV was illegally sourced from its satellite broadcasts.

“The DISH Programming distributed on the OneBox service was received from DISH’s satellite communications without authorization from DISH,” the complaint reads.

“During testing of the OneBox service, encoded messages incorporated into DISH’s satellite communications of the Willow Cricket channel, for example, were detected on the Willow Cricket channel retransmitted to customers of the OneBox service, thereby confirming this content originated from DISH’s satellite communications.”

While One Box TV is an LLC, the company doesn’t appear to have particularly grand premises. According to DISH, the company operates from a booth at a flea market and websites including OneBoxLive.com and OneBoxTV.com.

A note in the complaint indicates that DISH had a “pre-suit discussion” with One Box TV during which the company said that it had the ability to “remove channels” from its service. It’s not clear when that communication took place but if customer complaints posted to the Better Business Bureau website are any indicator, One Box TV went down during May.

“When we purchased our TV streaming box, we were promised lifetime updates. Our box needs updated [sic], and we can’t find this seller. E-mails returned. We paid $175 cash for the OneBox about 2-3 years ago. Model No. OneBoxTVPlus. We were promied lifetme updates [sic], but we cannot find the seller,” one reads.

Another complainant indicated that they went to the company’s place of business, but left disappointed.

“We received notice of them stopping their business. We went to see what’s up and the booth they were at is empty. We are out over $350 on our equipment. Sales rep was Donna F. She sold us 2 boxes and a monthly service and now we get an email saying they are discontinuing their business. We are out $350 for equipment,” a complaint posted May 13 reads.

Yet another complaint says that the company took back a previously-sold box to update it, but then closed down without returning the device. Subsequent phone calls went unanswered and the company’s voicemail was reportedly full.

DISH is now demanding a broad permanent injunction against One Box TV and its alleged operator, plus actual or statutory damages of between $10,000 and $100,000 per violation, plus costs.

Finally, the DISH case against IPGuys reported last week listed Miracle Box Media as a reseller of that service. Court records indicate that Virginia-based Miracle Box Media LLC and alleged operator Melvin Crawley Jr. are also being sued by DISH along broadly similar lines.

The One Box TV and Miracle Box complaints can be found here and here.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

In April, a group of movie companies filed a lawsuit against the operators of various websites that promoted and distributed the Showbox app.

Showbox and similarly named clones are used by millions of people. These apps enable users to stream movies via torrents and direct sources, using a Netflix-style interface.

The tools are a thorn in the side of movie companies, including those behind “The Hitman’s Bodyguard,” “London Has Fallen,” and “Hunter Killer.” In a lawsuit filed at a U.S. District Court in Hawaii, the companies pointed out that Showbox facilitates massive piracy.

“Plaintiffs bring this action to stop the massive piracy of their motion pictures brought on by the software application Show Box,” the 58-page complaint read.

“The Defendants misleadingly promote the Show Box app as a legitimate means for viewing content to the public, who eagerly install the Show Box app to watch copyright protected content, thereby leading to profit for the Defendants,” the companies added.

The movie outfits went after several defendants suspected of having ties to one or more Showbox-related sites. This includes a Pakistani man named Qazi Muhammad Zarlish, who allegedly operated ‘latestshowboxapp.com.’

While it can be tricky to get a judgment against an operator of a foreign pirate site, the movie companies can claim a win this week. They negotiated a consent judgment in which Zarlish agrees to stop any infringing activities. In addition, a money judgment is awarded in the amount of $150,000, to cover the costs, fees and damages.

Whether the Pakistani man has this kind of money at his disposal remains to be seen. However, his website that offered Showbox is no longer online. And in addition to the money, the judgment also includes a permanent injunction that prevents him from promoting or distributing other infringing apps.

These include, but are not limited to the “Show Box app, Popcorn Time, CotoMovies (Bobby Movie Box), MediaBox HD (The Movie DB), Cinemabox, Moviebox, Terrarrium, Mobdro and software applications affiliated with following piracy sources: YIFY; YTS; RARBG; TORRENTZ2; NYAA.SI; LIMETORRENTS; ZOOQLE; EZTV; and TORRENTDOWNLOADS.”

The paperwork shows that Qazi Muhammad Zarlish represented himself. He explained that the Showbox APK file that was made available on the site came from the third-party site showbox.fun. Interestingly, he assumed that it was perfectly legal.

“[The defendant] believed the Show Box app was a legitimate application similar to Netflix and Amazon Prime Video based upon the descriptions of Show Box app at the websites showbox.fun and show-box.pro,” the consent judgment reads.

Since this matter was resolved in a consent judgment, the Court didn’t review the case on its merits. However, it’s clear that the defendant made a rather expensive mistake, as the settlement shows.

—

A copy of the stipulated consent order between Qazi Muhammad Zarlish and Hunter Killer Productions, Inc., TBV Productions, LLC, Venice PI, LLC, Bodyguard Productions, Inc., and LHF Productions, Inc. is available here (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.