Last year a group of prominent record labels, all members of the RIAA, filed a lawsuit against ISP Cox Communications. 

The labels argue that Cox categorically failed to terminate repeat copyright infringers and that it substantially profited from this ongoing ‘piracy’ activity. All at the expense of the record labels and other rightsholders.

As part of the discovery phase, both parties requested relevant information from each other. The labels, for example, were interested in finding out the names and addresses of Cox business subscribers that received copyright infringement warnings. 

In addition to regular households, Cox also offers Internet connections to business clients and many of these – 2,793 to be precise – were flagged as pirates.

After some back and forth Cox and the record labels agreed on a stipulated court order, requiring the ISP to disclose this information. While the court signed off on this, not all affected subscribers are happy with this decision. One of them objected in court this week. 

The company in question appeared as “John Doe” and explained that it’s a  non-profit corporation that provides hospital and medical care facilities outside of Virginia. 

As is quite common today, the non-profit operates a secured network that’s only accessible to its employees. In addition, it offers public WiFi access to patients and visitors. The latter was provided by Cox in the relevant time period.

“Like other medical care providers, John Doe provides an unsecured, public
wireless network that can be accessed by patients and other visitors who agree to abide by John Doe’s terms of use for the Public WiFi network. Cox is the internet service provider for this Public WiFi network,” the company notes

It was this unsecured network that triggered the referenced copyright infringement notifications. This, despite the fact that all users had to agree to the terms of service, which specifically prohibited illegal downloading.

The health care provider doesn’t refute that visitors or patients may have used the network to share copyright-infringing content. However, it notes that there’s not much it can do to identify these infringers. Not then and not now.

The health care provider doesn’t track MAC addresses of people who connected to the network, and even if it did, that would only identify a device, not a person. 

Given this background, the “John Doe” company doesn’t see any reason why its details should be shared with the record labels. That won’t help to identify any copyright infringers. However, it does breach the health care provider’s privacy rights. 

“Thus, disclosure of John Doe’s subscriber information will not lead to the discovery of the individual(s) who are alleged by Plaintiffs to have engaged in copyright infringement through the misuse of John Doe’s network in violation of the access agreement,” the company informs the court.

“All disclosure will accomplish is a breach of John Doe’s privacy rights under the Cable Communications Privacy Act, 47 USC § 551, and the imposition of time and expense burdens on John Doe, all without furthering any claim or defense in this case.”

It is now up to the court to decide whether the details of the company can be handed over by Cox. Meanwhile, it remains unclear why the record labels are interested in this information at all, and how this will help their case.

—

A copy of John Doe’s objection to the disclosure 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.

Following its launch in 2011, Game of Thrones became one of the most talked about and loved TV shows in history.

Eight years and dozens of Emmy awards later, episode six of season eight aired last Sunday, bringing the curtain down for the final time.

While millions were able to soak up this momentous TV occasion, fans in China were left brokenhearted. Tencent Video, the Chinese platform that has held the local distribution rights to the HBO series since 2014, revealed that it would not be broadcasting S08EP06.

Citing a mysterious “media transmission problem”, Thrones fans were told that if they wanted to watch the show, that would have to be at a later date.

Strangely, however, HBO told the Wall Street Journal that there had been no problem delivering content to Tencent, leading to speculation that the show had become yet another casualty of the trade war with the United States.

But even as officials bicker and argue, the flood of content across the Internet continues, seemingly untroubled by the political turmoil. If official channels aren’t able to provide what the public wants, then unofficial swarms of like-minded people will do their jobs for them.

Since the announcement, TorrentFreak has been looking around various popular torrent and eD2K (yes, that’s still a thing) sites in China. We can safely say that obtaining the final episode of Game of Thrones is not a problem.

While the above image suggests availability for uTorrent and BitComet, a pair of torrent clients that are well known in the West, Chinese users are more likely to opt for the popular ‘Thunder’ client.

Owned by Xunlei, Thunder is one of the world’s most popular torrent clients. As shown below, links for all episodes in the series are easy to obtain via ‘thunder’ links, which can be thought of as a magnet link variant.

Of course, if the Chinese are relying on Western video sources to satisfy their S08EP06 needs, many of them will find they meet a language barrier that needs to be overcome. While Tencent offered Chinese subtitles, pirates are also happy to oblige with hand-translated SRT files, to match the Amazon-sourced video.

Finally, in addition to trade war speculation, a piece in Fortune noted that the final episode contained a point about democracy that may not have gone down particularly well with Chinese authorities. This, it’s suggested, may have something to do with the episode failing to air as planned.

Whether that’s the case or not, Game of Thrones episodes are already subject to censorship edits in the region, a point not lost on Chinese pirates who enthuse in site comment sections about whether copies of the show are cut or uncut versions.

Needless to say, due to Tencent’s “media transmission problems”, it’s likely that most if not all pirate copies currently circulating fit into the latter category. There are some things that not even the Chinese government and its Great Firewall can control.

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

In the early 2000s, the RIAA started going after against tens of thousands of alleged music pirates.

The music industry had just defeated Napster, but P2P file-sharing remained a massive problem. Applications such as KaZaA, Morpheus, Grokster, and eDonkey, had millions of users each.

Since filing federal lawsuits is relatively expensive, the RIAA attempted to take a shortcut by applying for so-called DMCA subpoenas. These are not reviewed by a judge, as regular subpoenas are, and only require a signature from the court clerk.

While this worked initially, Internet providers soon started to object. They argued that DMCA subpoenas are only valid when an Internet service stores or links to the infringing content, not when they merely pass on traffic.

Several courts, including the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, agreed with the ISPs and effectively banned the practice. If copyright holders want to go after individual downloaders, they have to file a complaint and request a regular subpoena.

While these rulings were established at the start of the last decade, Hawaii attorney Kerry Culpepper sees things differently. Representing the rightsholders of the movie “Hunter Killer,” he recently requested a DMCA subpoena against Verizon.

Culpepper and his client are not new to copyright litigation. Far from it. They have been involved in several lawsuits against alleged pirates, obtaining regular subpoenas. However, in this case, they are taking the shortcut.

Instead of filing a complaint, Culpepper applied for a DMCA subpoena to compel Verizon to identify the account holders behind 20 IP-addresses which allegedly shared a copy of the movie “Hunter Killer” via BitTorrent.

The court clerk signed off on this request, without oversight from a judge. This is pretty significant, as it means that the movie company can obtain the identities of the alleged pirates with limited expense, without having to file a lawsuit.

If this becomes common practice, it will become a goldmine for so-called copyright trolls. Now that more and more federal courts are pushing back against these cases, refusing to issue regular subpoenas, they could simply request DMCA subpoenas and avoid filing a lawsuit altogether.

There’s a big IF of course, as we noted that appeals courts outlawed similar practices over a decade ago. So how is this different now?

Looking at the filing, we see that Hunter Killer’s attorney is well aware of the precedents. They are mentioned in the subpoena application, but Culpepper argues that these earlier cases don’t necessarily apply here.

The rulings in the DC Circuit and Eighth Circuit appeals courts both concluded that DMCA subpoenas can’t be issued against ISPs that are mere conduits. This is because the “notifications” described in the DMCA could not be applied to ISPs that don’t store infringing material. As such, DMCA subpoenas were not an option.

Culpepper counters that the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court, which Hawaii and other states such as California fall under, never ruled on the mere conduit issue in a case like this. Hence, it’s an open question. In fact, Hunter Killer’s attorney notes that more recent decisions suggest that the DMCA notifications are valid in this case.

In the more recent repeat infringer cases against ISPs such as Cox and Grande, courts have concluded that these providers have no right to a DMCA safe harbor because they failed to act on DMCA notifications. This suggests that these notices are valid and apply to conduit providers.

Commenting in a personal capacity, not on behalf of his client, Culpepper informs TorrentFreak that these decisions suggest that DMCA subpoenas are valid too.

“The Fourth Circuit in BMG v. Cox, determined that Cox had no safe harbor preventing them from liability for infringement because of Cox’s failure to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers based upon the notifications received from Rightscorp among other reasons,” Culpepper says.

“These are the same types of notifications the DC Circuit and Eighth Circuit said were not valid for a 512(h) subpoena, yet here they were deemed sufficiently valid for triggering loss of safe harbor.”

Culpepper has many other counterpoints as well, but in this instance, these were not needed. The clerk issued the subpoena, which is what he and Hunter Killer were after.

The question remains, of course, is what they will do with the personal details of the alleged infringers. In theory, the information could be used to demand settlements, however, they could also serve as evidence for a bigger case.

In the past, Culpepper has approached file-sharers, not to sue or settle with them, but to build a case against the pirate apps there were using. This is what happened in a Showbox-related lawsuit, for example, and could happen here as well.

That said, the revival of the DMCA subpoena is definitely a major event that will be watched closely by rightsholders and ISPs. In this case, we see no evidence that Verizon objected, but if the practice becomes more common, the matter may end up in court.

—

A copy of Culpepper’s application and the signed DMCA Subpoena, spotted by Cashman, 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.

Diligently following top-tier Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) events has never been an inexpensive pastime.

From its modern roots in the early 1990s on a strictly PPV basis, MMA has become a huge draw around the globe. Dominated by the UFC, those PPVs today cost upwards of $60 in the US, albeit less in other countries where providers like BT Sport offer the events as part of much cheaper packages.

Nevertheless, there is no shortage of fans who’d prefer not to pay anything at all. That, of course, is entirely possible using various types of pirate streaming outlets, from dedicated sites to streaming torrents, from Kodi add-ons to ‘pirate’ IPTV services.

While these streams are in abundance most Saturdays, finding them isn’t always easy for the novice. However, acting as a human-powered link aggregator, that’s where Reddit’s /r/MMAStreams sub-Reddit came in handy. Visitors to the sub around event time were able to find free streams of most if not all events. Until this week, that is.

The nuking of the 165,000 member community shouldn’t have come as a surprise. Around a month ago, moderators of the sub posted a warning indicating that everyone was on borrowed time.

“Today, we were notified that r/MMAStreams is at high risk of being banned for copyright violation,” the announcement read.

“We are seeking clarity on the issue, but we must begin to take steps to move.”

The community began switching to /r/MMAStreamz but this week that too was banned for exactly the same reasons as its predecessor.

It isn’t clear who had been filing complaints against these subs but one can be pretty confident that the UFC had a fairly big part to play. While links to live events don’t hang around for long, Reddit doesn’t contest notices on behalf of users, particular when a sub is obviously centered around infringement.

Of course, many in the link-sharing community are looking for a scapegoat. From a strictly legal perspective, the obvious choice would be the people posting the streams (no pirate links, no notices – in theory) but to MMA fans, they certainly aren’t part of the problem.

There is another candidate, however. One with a very high profile and, many streaming fans believe, a mouth that should’ve stayed closed.

Brendan Schaub is a former UFC heavyweight contender but since his departure from the promotion, he hasn’t always been polite about the way it operates. He may have also stepped somewhat dramatically over the line in advance of UFC 236, the very first UFC PPV under its brand new and exclusive ESPN+ streaming deal.

In a nutshell, Schaub – who has more than 750,000 Twitter followers and a very successful podcast – hit the platform in a sweat last month because he couldn’t get the PPV on his TV. With the clock counting down, he then made a veiled threat to stream the event illegally. He was subsequently inundated with a couple of thousand messages from fans containing links to do just that.

If I don’t get this ESPN + to work in the next 5 mins I’m gonna be forced to turn to the dark side. I’ll buy a @stylebender Reebok kit so I don’t feel bad. @bryancallen what site do you use ?????? #UFC236

— Brendan Schaub (@BrendanSchaub) April 14, 2019

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8">

In a post-event podcast, Schaub revealed that what he saw in the illegal streaming world should be a serious matter for the UFC.

“I don’t think they [the UFC] realize the level of pure professionalism these dark web dudes have to these links. I’m not gonna say I did watch it illegally, i’m not gonna say I didn’t. When I clicked on that link, that thing was better quality than I had [expletive]…ever seen.

“Here’s the thing that’s scary about it,” he continued. “I must have got 2,000 DMs with different links to illegally stream this thing.”

And then, the cardinal sin. He mentioned Reddit by name.

“Just for database and research I went through 10 to 15 [of the links]. How big is Reddit? Reddit has their MMA thread where [events get posted], and you’re talking clear as day. I saw the fight. I’m anti-illegal streaming, i’m against that,” he added, to balance things up a bit.

That was the best UFC title fight I’ve ever seen. 50k bonus ain’t enough for those two warriors. Thank you @stylebender & @KelvinGastelum #UFC236 ? ? ?

— Brendan Schaub (@BrendanSchaub) April 14, 2019

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8">

Whether Schaub did pirate the whole event isn’t known but in the days that followed he continued to mention the illegal streams available via Reddit and elsewhere to his considerable audience. That, some believe, is why MMAStreams suddenly felt even more heat than usual.

The reality is that we’ll probably never know for sure. It’s also likely that even without Schaub’s promotional ‘help’, MMAStreams would still find itself choked-out eventually. Previously, similar sports-focused sub-Reddit’s have closed down following complaints from other organizations.

Considering its size, there is zero chance that the UFC didn’t know about MMAStreams already and with ESPN on board, they almost certainly want to show what they’re capable of on the eyeballs front. Platforms like MMAStreams don’t help that effort and that’s probably part of the reason why they’re no longer around.

Not on Reddit, at least….

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

As part of the RIAA, Universal Music is known for being the aggressor in dozens of copyright infringement complaints concerning the unlicensed use of its music.

Now, however, it now finds itself on the other side of the fence, following a copyright infringement complaint filed against it in the United States.

The man behind the action is Allan Tannenbaum, an award-winning photographer known for his works depicting the New York art, music and nightlife scene in the 70s and early 80s.

Tannenbaum’s portfolio contains many iconic photographs of John Lennon and Yoko Ono, including a very well known one that depicts the couple in bed laughing. (shown below)

“John Lennon cracks a joke while he and Yoko are nude in bed filming a video for ‘Just Like Starting Over’ in a SoHo studio, November 26, 1980,” says a description of the image on Tannenbaum’s site.

“Tannenbaum is the author of the Photograph and has at all times been the sole owner of all right, title and interest in and to the Photograph, including the copyright thereto,” Tannenbaum’s complaint reads.

According to the complaint, filed under Section 501 of the Copyright Act, Universal Music is the operator of uDiscoverMusic, a website that takes an in-depth look at “some of the most influential music in the world – and the artists that created it.”

At issue is an article published on the site titled “John Lennon – Milk and Honey” which ran Tannenbaum’s image alongside to the right, as shown in the screenshot below.

According to the Universal-owned site, the article was first published during July 2015, but Tannenbaum says that he only discovered the unlicensed use of his work in May 2019. The article is still live at the time of writing.

“Universal Music infringed Plaintiff’s copyright in the Photograph by reproducing and publicly displaying the Photograph on the Website,” the complaint notes.

“Universal Music is not, and has never been, licensed or otherwise authorized to reproduce, publically display, distribute and/or use the Photograph.”

It further alleges that Universal’s actions were willful, intentional, and purposeful, in “disregard of and indifference to Plaintiff’s rights.”

Demanding a trial by jury, Tannenbaum says he is entitled to damages and profits generated as a result of Universal’s “unlawful conduct”. Alternatively, he demands statutory damages of up to $150,000 for the infringed work.

The complaint, obtained by TorrentFreak, was filed just yesterday so Universal Music has not yet responded. It can be viewed 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.