Since the start of this decade, hundreds of thousands of alleged BitTorrent pirates have been sued by so-called ‘copyright trolls’ in the United States.

The select group of rightsholders that file these cases generally rely on an IP address as evidence. They then ask the courts to grant a subpoena, ordering Internet providers to hand over the personal details of the associated account holder.

While some judges have refused to do so in the past, many District Courts still issue these subpoenas. However, over the years judges have grown more skeptical about the provided evidence. This includes Florida District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro.

In February, Judge Ungaro was assigned a case filed by the adult entertainment company “Strike 3 Holdings,” which has filed hundreds of lawsuits over the past several months.

The company accused IP-address “72.28.136.217” of sharing its content through BitTorrent without permission. The Judge, however, was reluctant to issue a subpoena. She asked the company how the use of geolocation and other technologies could reasonably pinpoint the identity and location of the alleged infringer.

Responding to this order to show cause, Strike 3 explained that it used Maxmind’s database to link the IP-address to Internet provider Cogeco and a location in Southern Florida.  According to Maxmind, its IP address tracing service is roughly 95% accurate in the US, so the rightsholder is confident that it filed the case in the right court.

Strike 3 further admitted that, at this point, it doesn’t know whether the account holder is the actual copyright infringer. However, the company believes that this is the most plausible target and says it will try to find out more once the identity of the person in question is revealed.

That was not good enough for Judge Ungaro. In an order released this week she writes that, other than stating that it’s “plausible” that the infringer can be identified through the IP-address, Strike 3 failed to explain how the geolocation software can properly identify or locate the actual infringer.

“There is nothing that links the IP address location to the identity of the person actually downloading and viewing Plaintiff’s videos, and establishing whether that person lives in this district,” Judge Ungaro writes.

The order points out that an IP-address alone can’t identify someone. As such, it can’t accurately pinpoint the person who allegedly downloaded the copyright infringing content.

“For example, it is entirely possible that the IP address belongs to a coffee shop or open Wi-Fi network, which the alleged infringer briefly used on a visit to Miami,” Judge Ungaro notes.

“Even if the IP address were located within a residence in this district, the geolocation software cannot identify who has access to that residence’s computer and who actually used it to infringe Plaintiff’s copyright,” she adds.

Strike 3 stressed that many courts have issued subpoenas based on the exact same evidence. While that is true, the Judge counters that other courts, which also doubted the strength of an IP-address as evidence, have refused to do so.

In this instance, the Court finds that Strike 3 hasn’t provided sufficient evidence to argue that it can reasonably rely on the usage of geolocation to establish the identity of the accused downloader. Nor does it prove that the person lives in the Court’s jurisdiction.

As a result, the Court refused to issue a subpoena and dismissed the case against IP-address 72.28.136.217 for improper venue. The case is closed and Strike 3 won’t get the opportunity to refile.

While not all judges may come to the same conclusion, the order is a setback for Strike 3 and other rightsholders. They clearly have to come up with other arguments or evidence if their case is handled by this Judge.

But that shouldn’t really come as a complete surprise, as Judge Ungaro has issued similar orders in the past.

—

A copy of Judge Ursula Ungaro’s order, pointed out to us by SJD, 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.

Last summer, Cox ended its piracy liability lawsuit with music company BMG, agreeing to a “substantial settlement.”

That didn’t mean an end to the ISP’s legal trouble though. Cox remains caught up in another lawsuit filed by a group of major music labels, all members of the RIAA.

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.

Most of these alleged copyright-infringers are situated in regular households. However, Cox also offers Internet connections to business clients and many of these – 2,793 to be precise – were also flagged as pirates.

This essentially means that the ISP received copyright infringement notices for activity that took place on the IP-addresses that were assigned to these companies. This is a group of customers the RIAA labels are particularly interested in. 

During discovery, the labels have asked Cox to identify these business subscribers. The ISP initially only shared some billing and payment data, but that was not enough for the music companies, which want names and addresses as well. 

This is a rather broad request that we haven’t seen before, one that puts the Internet provider in a tough spot. Not least because handing over personal data of customers without a court order goes against its privacy policy.

This week Cox and the labels submitted a proposed stipulated order in which the ISP agrees to hand over the information. There doesn’t appear to have been any opposition from the ISP, but both parties request a signed court order to address the privacy policy restrictions. 

The order, swiftly signed by U.S. District Court Judge Liam O’Grady, requires the ISP to identify the 2,793 business subscribers for which it received copyright infringement notices between February 1, 2013 and November 26, 2014.

“It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between Plaintiffs and Cox that Cox shall make reasonable efforts to notify the Business Subscribers, within five days of entry of this Stipulated Order, of Cox’s intent to disclose their name and contact information to Plaintiffs pursuant to this Order,” it reads.

The order also requires Cox to alert the affected business subscribers, who will then have the option to protest the decision. If that doesn’t happen, the personal information will be handed over to the labels.

The names and addresses of the business subscribers won’t be made public, as they fall under an earlier signed protective order. This states that any personal information of subscribers is classified as “highly confidential” data which means that it’s for attorneys’ eyes only.

While the paperwork is in order, one burning question remains. Why are the RIAA labels interested in knowing which businesses were flagged for copyright infringement?

There are no signs that any of these companies will be pursued individually.  What is clear, however, is that the music companies see the information as substantial evidence that will help to argue their case. Time will tell what the exact purpose is.

—

A copy of the stipulated order to product identifying information concerning certain Cox business subscribers 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.

During April the Ukrainian government announced the launch of “Operation Pirates”, an anti-piracy initiative aimed at tackling the rising threat of online piracy.

“We must learn how to respect intellectual works, because at first glance, watching a videotape on a pirate resource does not pose any threat to the security of society,” said Ukrainian cyberpolice chief Sergey Demedyuk.

A memorandum accompanying the initiative was signed by Starlight Media (Ukraine’s largest broadcasting group), Media Group Ukraine (one of the largest media holding companies), TV channel Studio 1 + 1, Discovery Networks, IFPI-member Music Industry Association of Ukraine, and the Ukrainian Anti-Piracy Association.

Since the launch of the campaign, no pirate sites have been reported as fallen. This week, however, police announced that they had successfully taken down four video streaming platforms.

The main casualty was kinogo.co.ua, a site specializing in movies and TV shows. It was one of the most popular sites of its kind in Ukraine. According to SimilarWeb data, the site was good for around 500,000 daily visits in the month before its demise.

Close to 84% of the site’s traffic came from Ukraine, with many of those visitors also going on to visit UAFilm.top, a pirate site operating in the same niche receiving around 100,000 daily visits.

These sites, along with the recently-launched kino-hd.top (200,000 daily visits) and the relatively small kino-hd.top, were all shuttered in the latest operation. Police targeted the location from where the sites were administered and the home addresses of the suspects.

According to Ukraine’s cyberpolice unit, the operators of all four platforms were two brothers, aged 38 and 32, from the Dnipropetrovsk region in eastern Ukraine.

Interestingly, one of the men is reported as working for the government’s State Fiscal Service, which handles taxes, customs, and the fight against tax and customs fraud. As a result, officers also reportedly carried out a search at the suspect’s place of employment, seizing equipment.

As is common with the majority of similar platforms worldwide, the four now-defunct streaming sites are said to have generated revenue via advertising. No exact figures have been released but the authorities suggest income of several thousand dollars per month.

Police say that a pre-trial investigation under Part 3 of Article 176 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which deals with copyright and other intellectual property rights violations, is underway. If found guilty, the brothers face fines or imprisonment of up to six years.

In earlier operations carried out this year, Ukrainian authorities shut down more than 60 pirate sites, most operating in the streaming sector.

Meanwhile, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has opted to keep Ukraine on its latest Priority Watch List published last month.

“Online piracy remains a significant problem in Ukraine and fuels piracy in other markets,” the report reads.

“Pirated films generated from illegal camcording and made available online cause particular damage to the market for first-run movies. In addition, inadequate enforcement continues to raise concerns among IP stakeholders in Ukraine.”

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

Under U.S. law, streaming and downloading piracy are seen as two different offenses. Not just from a technical point of view, but also in the way they are punished.

Unauthorized streaming is categorized as a public performance instead of distribution, which is punishable as a misdemeanor, not a felony.

Lawmakers tried to change this with the Commercial Felony Streaming Act in 2011, and later with the SOPA and PIPA bills. These bills were met with public outrage and didn’t pass.

As a result, the gap between streaming and traditional file-sharing still remains today. However, calls to change this continue to resurface, especially now that streaming piracy is much more prevalent than file-sharing and downloading.

During a hearing at the Senate Committee on the Judiciary last week, two major US sports organizations renewed their calls to criminalize streaming.

Among the speakers were Michael Potenza, vice president and intellectual property counsel for the NBA, as well as Riché McKnight, who’s the Global Head Of Litigation at the UFC’s parent company Endeavor. Both sounded the alarm bell about streaming piracy, live streaming in particular. 

Potenza informed the subcommittee on Intellectual Property that his organization relies on streaming and that it has benefited from the technological advancements that were made in recent years. However, these same technologies are abused by pirates.

To fight streaming piracy, the NBA has implemented a multi-pronged approach, of which takedown notices are an important part. The sports league uses a combination of human reviewers and technology to spot illegal broadcasts and tries to shut these down as soon as possible. Unfortunately, many of these reappear soon after.

“Even when the NBA is successful in shutting down an illegal streaming website or social media accounts, continued vigilance during all live games is important, as the illegal streams often reappear at a new domain extension or social media account,” Potenza said. 

In some cases, illegal streams are operated or promoted by criminal enterprises. These sell dedicated pirate streaming boxes, unauthorized subscriptions, or offer web-based streaming portals. These dedicated streams can be virtually impossible to shut down, as they are hosted by companies that ignore takedown notices.

“Some of these bad actors actively promote non-compliance with DMCA notices as a reason to sign-up for their ‘DMCA Ignored Hosting’ services. Platforms that utilize these services and fail to respond to take down notices in a timely manner do so intentionally,” Potenza noted. 

McKnight shared many of the same concerns. He pointed out that UFC events are severely impacted by piracy and hinted that social media and other digital platforms should step up their game. This includes terminating accounts of known infringers, but these companies could do more.

“In addition, digital platforms should consider sending out piracy notices to their users before live events — or if that is not feasible, then at least periodically — reminding them that piracy is illegal. Much like the copyright notices at the start of a movie, these warnings can remind law-abiding viewers that unauthorized streaming is illegal,” McKnight said.

Another common theme was a renewed call to criminalize online streaming. Both witnesses said that this could help to deter people from getting involved in the pirate streaming business. 

“Without a real fear of criminal prosecution, pirates are emboldened to continue engaging in illegal activity to distribute sports content – whether it is manufacturing and selling ISDs or operating an illegal streaming service,” NBA’s Potenza said.

“It is important to revise the criminal law to recognize illegal streaming of copyrighted content as a felony, which would provide a more effective way to deter illegal streaming,” he added.

This call was backed by Endeavor’s Global Head Of Litigation, who added that criminalizing streaming could motivate other countries to follow suit.

“Strengthening the penalties will deter illegal streaming and increase the likelihood of prosecutors bringing these cases to court. In addition, it will send a message to the rest of the world that the United States takes this issue seriously, and will provide other countries an incentive to take similar actions,” McKnight noted.

While the NBA and the UFC’s parent company agree that penalties for streaming should be similar to those of other forms of piracy, both witnesses stressed that this criminalization should target organized operations, not casual users. 

“I would clarify that, in terms of proportionality, we’re not seeking these types of penalties for people who simply log onto a pirated stream. Or even just for people who upload a pirated stream or two onto a social media platform,” McKnight said.

“I think the casual viewer who’s streaming a game in his or her own home shouldn’t be subject to felony liability, or even misdemeanor liability,” Potenza added.   

Interestingly, the subcommittee Chairman, Senator Thom Tillis, jumped in at this point noting that he believes some penalties are warranted. Just the other day, he was tempted to look for a pirated copy of Game of Thrones, and potential penalties could motivate people to turn to legal sources more often.

“I’m a Game of Thrones fan and I missed the Sunday night episode. Fortunately, I have HBO on demand, so I caught up last night, but there was a temptation for me to go out on the internet and see if I can find some way to get it. I didn’t do it, but if I had, I think it would have been fair if I had some minor penalty,” Tillis said.

“That may at least make the general public a little bit more mindful that if you get caught you’re going to pay for it. You need to be aware of that and make sure that you’re going to sites that are legally disseminating the information. I don’t want to completely let the consuming public off the hook,” the Senator added.

Based on this response, it seems that there is at least some support in Congress to criminalize unauthorized streaming. However, for now, there are no concrete proposals on the table yet.

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

For more than 15 years and mainly since the rise of BitTorrent-based sharing, sites and platforms offering Hollywood movies or TV shows have been wary of the MPAA.

At any moment, BitTorrent trackers and indexers could find themselves in the group’s crosshairs, targeted by full-blown lawsuits or threats that the same would follow, if infringing activity continued.

But while the threat was real, litigation has always been expensive, sometimes prohibitively so. Furthermore, video content being shared by pirates wasn’t always owned by the studios of the MPAA, allowing many sites to slip through the net.

In June 2017, the MPAA began plugging both of these loopholes with the launch of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), a huge anti-piracy coalition featuring not only MPAA members, but companies like Amazon, Netflix, CBS, HBO, and the BBC.

After adding Discovery Inc. and two Viacom-owned companies back in March, ACE now has 33 members. This not only means that it’s becoming more and more difficult to run a ‘pirate’ video platform or service without treading on at least one member’s toes, but there are almost three dozen large to huge companies now sharing the financial burden of chasing down pirates.

Now, according to MPAA chief Charles Rivkin, ACE is about to become even more powerful.

In an interview with WorldScreen, Rivkin detailed some of ACE’s achievements so far, such as shutting down 123Movies and taking on TickBox and Dragon Box, companies operating in the so-called ISD (illicit streaming device) market. A case against Omniverse is still ongoing.

“We were able to win in court against pirate operators called TickBox and Dragon Box, and they represent a new threat: the internet streaming devices, the ISDs, that are basically devices that can be purchased completely legally but when loaded with illegal software, can do enormous damage to content. It’s a never-ending fight, but we’re starting to make a big difference,” he said.

“And it’s an existential threat for some of the small and medium businesses that make up the industry. I was speaking to some broadcasters in Paris who said that piracy can be as big as their entire bottom line. And the impact on entertainment companies is huge, so this is a top priority for us.”

That Rivkin mentions 123Movies (Vietnam), then Tickbox and Dragon Box (United States), followed by France (Canal+ is an ACE member), shows that the fight against piracy is going global. ACE has already targeted several Kodi-related platforms and add-ons in the UK since its inception, yet another sign that no important region is off-limits.

If there is business worth doing there, ACE either has it covered already or will have it in hand fairly soon.

“Every major market has a participating member. We’re in the process of dramatically expanding [ACE] even more. It is already the premier global effort to reduce piracy,” Rivkin added.

How this expansion will manifest itself is not yet clear, but it seems likely that ACE will continue with its strategy of ‘loud’ public litigation (such as that taken against TickBox and Dragon Box) and selective ‘quiet’ action against certain players.

Last month, ACE told TorrentFreak that it had “sought and obtained voluntary cooperation from a significant number of owners, operators, and developers of sites, add-ons, and services” that facilitate piracy.

“We will execute more planned global actions along these lines and look to continue our success protecting creators around the world,” ACE spokesperson Richard VanOrnum added.

These ‘quiet’ actions are of course intriguing.

From the limited information available to us, it seems clear that they vastly outnumber the volume of ‘loud’ actions seen thus far and mainly target products with a large audience (Kodi add-ons and builds, for example) but without the obvious commercial element of many ‘pirate’ sites and services.

However, we have received information which suggests that large platforms may not be immune from being presented with settlement agreements, which form part of the process to cease-and-desist.

This complicates reporting because documentation previously seen by TF requires those targeted not to tell anyone apart from their lawyers about the approach to shut down. In return, ACE promises not to make their identities known, meaning that details shared are kept to a minimum.

For example, last week huge IPTV service Vader shut down, stating that it had been approached by companies seeking its closure. The platform didn’t mention ACE directly but if anyone would like them to close down, ACE would be the prime candidate.

We asked ACE if the coalition was behind the closure and a spokesperson promised to send over a statement. Thus far, however, we haven’t received anything back. While a comment may yet be forthcoming, an additional document sent to TF (the veracity of which we haven’t been able to independently confirm), suggests that Vader has been given the opportunity to settle.

If that’s indeed the case, the matter could potentially disappear into the ether, as so many other services and tools have also done in recent times. Either way, we can probably expect much more of this type of action in the future, as ACE’s “drastic” expansion brings in more funds and tentacles in every corner of the world.

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