Blocking orders to prevent the distribution of copyright content are commonplace in several regions around the world.

In India, however, blocking injunctions are regularly handed down to protect specific movies, oftentimes before those movies are even released.

That is also the case with the movie ‘Nerkonda Paarvai’, a legal drama set to hit big screens worldwide today. In anticipation of this release, copyright holder Bayview LLP headed off to the Madras High Court, seeking a pre-emptive injunction to prevent the movie from being spread to the public for free via the Internet and other means.

The High Court hasn’t published the full details of the application, meaning that the list of sites set to be targeted hasn’t yet been revealed in public. It almost certainly contains one, if not many domains, operated by the notorious torrent site Tamilrockers, but the rest remain open to speculation.

What we do know is that a total of 39 Internet service providers were named as defendants in the order handed down this week by Justice Krishnan Ramasamy in the Madras High Court. The Judge acknowledges that the Bayview LLP production has been the subject of significant investment and is set to be released on more than 2,000 screens worldwide.

While it’s not uncommon to list ISPs as defendants in such cases, often noting that they play an unwitting role in the distribution of infringing content, the wording in the Judge’s order, which cites the plaintiff’s case, seems to go considerably further. Whether that’s entirely intentional is open to question.

“The learned counsel for applicant contended that the various cable and internet services provided by various persons (respondents 1–9) across the world are involved in activities of recording, cam-cording and reproducing the audio songs, audio-visual clips, audio-visual songs and full cinematographic films that are screened in theatres and then copying/reproducing them through various medium including but not limited to CDs, DVDs, VCDs, Blu-ray Discs, computer hard drives, pen drives etc.,and distribute the same for selling at a meager sum to the general public without any leave or authorization of the production houses/copyright holders/right holders such as the applicant herein,” the order reads.

Citing the above and referencing the application, the Judge said that in his opinion a prima facie case had been made for him to award a preliminary injunction which will continue until August 20, 2019.

The order, obtained by TorrentFreak, is available here (pdf). The full list of ISPs is detailed below.

1) BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED
2) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
3) Bharati Airtel Ltd.
4) Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly Idea Cellular Ltd.)
5) Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.
6) Atria Convergence Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
7) Hathway Cable and Datacom Ltd.
8) Tata Docomo
9) Asianet Satellite Communications
10) Tikona Digital Networks Pvt. Ltd.
11) You Broadband And Cable India Ltd.
12) Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd.
13) Rail Tel Corporation of India Ltd.
14) Shyam Spectra Pvt. Ltd.
15) Sify Technologies Ltd.
16) AT And T Global Network Service India Pvt. Ltd.
17) Peak Air Pvt. Ltd.
18) Knet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (Cherrinet)
19) Limras Eronet Broadband Services Pvt. Ltd.
20) SITI Networks Limited
21) Andhra Pradesh State Fibre Net Ltd.,
22) Raaj Internet (I) Pvt. Ltd.
23) Joister Infoserve Pvt. Ltd.
24) GTPL Hathway Ltd.
25) Ready Link Internet Service Ltd.
26) Nettlinx Limited
27) Excitel Broadband Pvt. Ltd.
28) Southern Online Bio Technologies Ltd.
29) Dawn Supports Pvt. Ltd.
30) Thalainagar Digital Cables (P) Ltd.
31) Cable Cast New Media Pvt. Ltd.
32) C32 Cable Net Pvt. Ltd.
33) Team 5 Network
34) SND Satellite Vision
35) Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd.
36) Asianet Digital Network Pvt. Ltd.
37) DEN Networks Ltd.
38) Starvision Cable TV Network
39) Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)

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

Frustrated by thousands of cheaters who wreak havoc in Fortnite’s “Battle Royale,” game publisher Epic Games has taken several to court.

The game developer isn’t trying to bankrupt these people financially. It is mainly interested in preventing them from cheating in the future.

The main strategy thus far has been to ‘settle’ the cases. Several accused cheaters have signed consent judgments, promising not to cheat or engage in any copyright-infringing activity going forward. This includes the popular YouTuber Golden Modz, who settled his case earlier this year.

Despite these widely publicized lawsuits, cheaters will be cheaters. The problem persists and some still openly sell cheats online while posting YouTube videos to promote their work.

This includes a YouTuber called CBV, who was sued by Epic Games a few weeks ago. 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 discussing his troubles, the 14-year-old states that he won’t make Fortnite videos anymore. But his tone is 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 notes.

“They’re going to attempt to bankrupt my family just because I made Fortnite cheats. Just cause I allegedly made Fortnite tonight cheats and played this game while making YouTube videos,” he adds.

In its complaint, Epic Games indeed seeks damages. However, the statutory maximum in this case, where one work is at stake, wouldn’t exceed $150,000, which is far from $100 million.

CBV is trying to make the point that it would look bad if Epic Games pursues massive damages from a relatively small cheater, who’s not even an adult. While that may be, arguments like that don’t win a lawsuit.

The YouTuber’s attorneys, however, have more arguments why the case should be dismissed. This week they filed a motion to dismiss the case. Among other things, they point out that the court doesn’t have jurisdiction over their client and that requiring a minor to defend himself in another state would be unreasonable.

“Defendant C.B. is a child who lives in Illinois with absolutely no connection to North Carolina. Nonetheless, Plaintiff Epic Games, Inc., a multibillion company, wants to drag him into court here,” they write.

“Exercising jurisdiction over C.B. would be unfair and unreasonable, as well as forbidden by the United States Constitution,” the attorneys add.

One of the additional issues highlighted is that the TOS and EULA are not enforceable, because a minor can not enter into a legally binding contract. In fact, both Epic’s TOS and EULA specifically state that the signee has to be an adult.

In the YouTube video, CBV notes that the case is “kind of a joke,” adding that Epic Games surely doesn’t need the little money that he has, as they just hosted a 100 million dollar tournament.

However, reading through the paperwork it becomes clear that this lawsuit, which is similar to the ones that have been filed in the past, isn’t really about money. The main issue Epic Games appears to be concerned with is to stop CBV from promoting and selling hacks.

Epic has previously asked YouTube to remove several videos where this activity is promoted. Since CBV submitted DMCA counternotices to reinstate a video, Epic has to file a lawsuit, otherwise the video will automatically become available again after 14 days.

In other words, the lawsuits may not be about bankrupting and defendants, as we have suggested before, but mostly an indirect effort to ensure that certain hacking-related YouTube videos remain offline. Or as Epic Games puts it in the original complaint.

“Defendant’s submission of a DMCA counter notification, which requires YouTube to restore the infringing content unless Epic files an action seeking a court order to restrain Defendant from engaging in infringing activity, creates a continuing risk of copyright infringement.”

It will be up to the court to decide whether it has jurisdiction over the 14-year-old and if Epic’s claims hold up or not.

—

A copy of the motion to dismiss, filed on behalf of the alleged cheater, 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.

Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN is famous for taking on pirates both large and small. From The Pirate Bay to people dealing in IPTV boxes and sundry media, BREIN is rarely out of the headlines for long.

One of BREIN’s current strategies is to track down pirates, make them admit to their crimes, and then negotiate a settlement. This usually involves agreeing to cease-and-desist and handing over some kind of cash payment, to go towards any supposed losses incurred by its copyright holder partners and the costs of pursuing the case.

While some people keep to the agreed terms, others do not. BREIN says it doesn’t let these cases lie. Case in point, a man who sold pirated copies of eBooks in the Netherlands.

According to BREIN, the 38-year-old operated under the name Ebookplaza and Alexnav, selling thousands of eBooks via sites including Marktplaats.nl, Speurders.nl and Tweedehands.nl. This caught the attention of BREIN, who tracked the man down.

“Taking into account the man’s capacity to pay, BREIN reached a settlement consisting of a declaration of abstention with a penalty clause and a contribution to the costs of 450 euros,” BREIN said in a statement this morning.

BREIN believes its original offer to settle was reasonable but still, no payment was forthcoming. The man did not respond to reminders and a summons was returned marked as “address unknown.” But despite the relatively small settlement amount, BREIN wasn’t prepared to let the case go.

After discovering the man had protected his data with the authorities, BREIN took steps to find out where he now lived and after a procedure discovered he hadn’t moved away at all. BREIN sent in the bailiffs who were handed email ‘evidence’ that the case had been dismissed. According to the anti-piracy group, that email was faked.

“That the email was forged was not only apparent from the incorrect terminology – after all, it is not a criminal case – but in particular because the sender’s address was not in use at the time. BREIN then summoned the man. He did not appear at the session,” the anti-piracy group explained.

As a result, a judge sitting in Eindhoven has now awarded BREIN an even higher amount plus costs – 1,421 euros – with interest added on top until the date the amount is settled in full.

“This man got a very reasonable settlement and now he has to pay a lot more. We will not let him escape that,” says BREIN chief Tim Kuik.

“Whoever burns his buttocks must sit on the blisters.”

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

Since the release of the first episode back in 2011, Game of Thrones has conquered the hearts of many people.

Unfortunately for HBO, not all of these fans have enjoyed the series through legal channels.

For several years in a row, Game of Thrones has been the most pirated TV-show. This year, when the final season aired, the interest was once again overwhelming.

While there have already been some numbers floating around, revealing that millions of people turned to pirate sites to watch the show, it wasn’t really clear what the broader impact was on the total piracy ecosystem.

There was some anecdotal evidence, with torrent site operators reporting massive boosts in traffic, but new data from MUSO now places the Game of Thrones numbers in a broader context.

When we reviewed global pirate site traffic data provided by MUSO this week, we noticed what at first appeared to be an unusual uptick. After more than a year of slowly declining visitor numbers, there was a sudden increase in April 2019, as can be seen below.

Looking more closely, it turned out that this uptick was mostly related to video content. Other categories, including music piracy, were actually going down. While this seemed odd, the date of the sudden April spike provided a very likely explanation.

On April 14, the day of the Game of Thrones season premiere, the number of pirate site visits jumped drastically, up by roughly 45 million compared to a week earlier. This pattern returned with each subsequent episode, with the record being set after the third episode.

Overall, Game of Thrones appears to account for an initial uptick of roughly 8% in global traffic to pirate sites. That’s immense, to say the least. As mentioned before, this traffic boost wasn’t visible on other sites, such as stream-rippers, which are related to music piracy.

Sites such as The Pirate Bay did notice a sharp increase in traffic though, as the graph below shows.

TorrentFreak spoke to Phil Taylor, an analyst at MUSO, who supports our findings and observed the Game of Thrones boost as well.

“The demand for piracy of Game of Thrones is unprecedented. The demand for GOT was so high that it visibly increased traffic for domains such as thepiratebay.org,” Taylor tells us.

“We will get a better view of overall traffic and trends for 2019 as the year progresses, however, the impact of Game of Thrones on overall traffic in April and May of 2019 is clear,” he adds.

Seeing the visible impact of a single title on overall yearly piracy data is rather unique. At TorrentFreak, we certainly haven’t seen it before. And now that Game of Thrones has come to an end, it’s doubtful we will again.

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

In many countries around Europe and further afield, blocking pirate sites is carried out with permission from the courts.

The process is often long and expensive in the first instance but once a precedent has been set, subsequent blocking of additional sites should – at least in theory – be a much more simple affair.

Japan has been struggling to introduce a similar system for some time now but has continually come up against opposition from those who believe that monitoring Internet users’ traffic in order to block various domains amounts to a privacy breach.

The Telecommunications Business Act guarantees privacy of communications and prevents censorship, as does Article 21 of the Constitution.

Additional proposals suggested that Internet users could be confronted with popup warnings when they visit pirate sites, either as an alternative to blocking, a deterrent, or to help people differentiate them from legal offerings. However, that plan is being viewed as a potential invasion of privacy too.

A report compiled this week by an expert panel with the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications has concluded that such popup warnings could infringe citizens’ right to secrecy of communications.

Asahi reports that in order to make this kind of system work, Internet service providers would first need to obtain consent from their subscribers so that monitoring their attempts to access certain sites would remain legal.

The publication says that after the panel sought opinions from the public on the proposal, it was “bombarded by emails” sent by people calling for the plan to be rejected on privacy grounds.

Given that ISPs in other regions have complained that they shouldn’t bear the costs associated with blocking and similar regimes, it’s no surprise that some in Japan are taking a similar stance. Other providers indicate that they’re not ready from a technological standpoint, which of course is also closely connected with costs.

Nevertheless, some ISPs have agreed to begin trialing a popup warning system during the fall, in order to assess its effectiveness. That will mean them first having to explain to their users that they wish to monitor their online behavior and then obtain legal permission to do so.

Given a choice between being monitored by their ISP or not, it seems unlikely that many Internet users – if they actually understand the proposition – will willingly have someone watch over their communications.

And surely, visitors to pirate sites – the obvious targets of the campaign – will reject the offer immediately, if the purpose of the offer is made to clear to them in the beginning. That calls into question the entire point of the campaign, which is to assess whether warnings on pirate sites will deter their use.

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