In recent years, a wide variety of companies have filed lawsuits against sellers of pirate set-top boxes.

Several of these cases target devices that cater to the Asian market and haven’t received a lot of press, but a recent order against the company behind the BTV set-top box caught our eye.

The case in question was filed by a group of rightsholders including Asia TV, Star India, Viacom18, and Dish Network. In their complaint, they accuse Hong Kong-based ‘Dibia Networks Limited’ of running a pirate broadcasting network by retransmitting copyrighted channels.

“Dibia has built its business model around blatant copyright infringement, brazenly advertising and promoting the capability of the BTV device to provide users with infringing streams of the Copyrighted Programs,” it reads.

As is often the case in piracy-related lawsuits, Dibia did not defend itself. As a result, the rightsholders moved for a default judgment which includes a rather broad permanent injunction.

The companies requested the maximum statutory damages for 44 separate TV episodes and that is exactly what they got. In a recent order, New York District Court Judge George Daniels awarded a total of $6.6 million in damages.

It’s questionable whether the rightsholders will ever see a penny, but an associated permanent junction gives them a lot of options to make sure that the BTV set-top boxes remain offline.

Aside from restraining Dibia from engaging in any infringing activities, it directs domain name registrars and registries to disable BTV’s websites, and transfer the domains to the rightsholders. This includes BTVBox.com, which has been signed over to Dish Network.

These domain takeovers are not new but the injunction goes further than that, mentioning various third-party intermediaries who are compelled to cut their ties with servers or sites that are linked to BTV the boxes or apps.

This includes companies that are involved in “sales, distribution, shipping or logistics services,” for the set-top boxes, but also “back-end service providers, service providers routing traffic or providing bandwidth, content delivery networks, and domain name server systems,” for the associated sites.

This order is rather broad, particularly in respect of the companies that route traffic, which could include the Tier1 networks that form the Internet’s backbone. The term ‘DNS systems’ can be interpreted broadly as well, adding virtually every ISP into the mix.

Whether this is the intention of the rightsholders is unclear, as they list CloudFlare, Incapsula, and DNSPod as examples. The latter two don’t offer DNS servers, but host DNS entries for customers instead.

From the injunction

The injunction goes on to mention several other third-party intermediaries, including “content hosting websites,” “domain name registration privacy protection services,” “providers of social media services,” “user-generated and online content services,” and “data security services.”

Again, it lists examples of services that are covered by the language above, such as GitHub, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.

While the language is very broad, we have to keep in mind that this is a default judgment. The defendant chose not to fight the case, and none of the mentioned intermediaries had their say.

At the time of writing, there is no indication that any of these intermediaries are being or will be approached to enforce the order. This may not be needed, as BTV’s websites appear to be offline.

That said, the order opens the door for similar broad requests.

Interestingly, this is not the first time this kind of language has been seen in US courts. The MPAA’s member studios previously requested a similar order in their case against MovieTube. However, this didn’t make it into the final permanent injunction, as happened here.

At the time, the EFF warned that such an order would give movie studios “the power to force practically every Internet company within the reach of U.S. law to help them disappear the MovieTube websites.”

In the present case, the order passed quietly. RapidTVNews picked it up this week, but surprisingly little attention is being paid to the order thus far.

—

A copy of the default judgment and injunction 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.

On November 1, 2018, Russia’s most powerful technology and entertainment companies signed a Memorandum of Cooperation to tackle online piracy.

The agreement, designed to rid all major platforms of infringing content, saw movie, television, and Internet companies agree to the formation of a central database of infringing sites, which will provide information on what content should be deleted.

While Channel One, the National Media Group, Gazprom-Media, the Internet Video Association, the Association of Film and Television Producers, Yandex, Rambler Group, Mail.Ru Group, vKontakte, and RuTube signed up, Google did not. However, telecoms watchdog Roscomnadzor suggested that Google would be welcome to join, when the time is right.

To that end, discussions continued in Moscow Wednesday, with Deputy Head of Roscomnadzor Vadim Subbotin meeting with Doron Avni, Google’s Director of Public Policy & Government Relations for Europe, Middle East & Africa Emerging Markets.

During the meeting, Google was officially invited to join the anti-piracy memorandum, which in some respects is already aligned with the requirements of the DMCA. However, instead of Google receiving complaints directly from copyright holders, the memorandum requires that details of infringing content are held in a database administered by Roscomnadzor.

The plan is for the database to be queried every five minutes by the signatories, who will use the data to remove infringing content from search results and hosting services. No further information in respect of Google has been released by Roscomnadzor so it remains unclear whether the US-based company is prepared to deviate from its current takedown notice procedure under the DMCA.

Another topic of discussion was Google’s failure to connect its systems to another centralized database that contains a list of permanently blocked websites. Search engines operating in Russia are obliged to connect to the resource but to date, Google has not.

Several weeks ago, Roscomnadzor contacted Google with a demand that it begins filtering its search results using data obtained from the country’s ‘FGIS’ blacklist. Google did not comply, which led the telecoms watchdog to declare that the search giant is in breach of federal law.

That left Google vulnerable to an administrative fine of between 500,000 and 700,000 rubles (US$7,611 to US$10,656). While insignificant in monetary terms, the matter will have to be decided by a court, with Roscomnazor considering its position thereafter. Following the meeting, however, there’s a sign that things may be progressing.

“The meeting discussed a wide range of issues on the implementation by Google of the provisions of Russian legislation,” a Roscomnadzor statement reads.

“One of the key points of the talks was to discuss the situation around the violation by the company of the requirements of Russian law to ensure the filtering of Google search results of information prohibited in Russia.

“Doron Avni will present the proposed mechanisms for resolving the situation at Google’s corporate center in California,” the watchdog added.

In other news concerning the anti-piracy memorandum, work on the centralized database is already underway. Head of Gazprom-Media Dmitry Chernyshenko told reporters that copyright holders were working hard to establish the resource.

“I know that those creating this platform are working with might and main. The preliminary filling of the database is already beginning,” Chernyshenko said.

According to the media boss, the full database should be completed in around three months’ time although it will need to be continually updated.

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

As the heated debate over the EU’s controversial Article 13 proposals continues, YouTube is becoming ever more vocal.

Relatively silent in the run-up to the September vote which saw the European Parliament vote in favor of proposals put forward by Axel Voss’ EPP group, YouTube now seems very concerned over the possibility of being held liable for infringing content uploaded to its platform.

“While we support the goals of article 13, the European Parliament’s current proposal will create unintended consequences that will have a profound impact on the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people,” Wojcicki wrote in blog post earlier this week.

Wojcicki’s statement carried a stark warning that liability for YouTube under Article 13 could force the platform to block content from EU citizens. No company could take on such a financial risk, she said.

Thus far, the Article 13 debate has been polarized, with the entertainment industries hugely in favor and companies like YouTube and pro-Internet freedom groups strongly against. Now, however, a new development has created an interesting split in the ranks, with Julia Reda, MEP for the Pirate Party, warning that YouTube is now lobbying in favor of upload filters.

As detailed in a release from Reda’s office this morning, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki has made a number of statements in recent weeks that indicate that the video hosting platform is in favor of pre-filtering content before it’s made available to the public.

Of course, Google has its ContentID filtering system already in place, meaning that it would be in pole position to further dominate the video hosting space, if the filtering option is adopted by the EU.

“The fact that Youtube is now publicly lobbying for mandatory upload filters is not surprising in the least. By introducing ContentID, YouTube has already proven that is is very much capable of developing filters for certain types of content, such as music,” Reda explains.

“If the entire market was obliged to install such filters, YouTube would not only be miles ahead in of its competitors in the development of such technologies, it would also be in a position to sell its filters to smaller platforms. Large platforms such as YouTube would grow further and be presented with an entirely new business model. The significantly smaller EU competition would be left behind.”

In common with many activists, Reda is passionately against the idea of content being filtered. The MEP points to numerous failures of YouTube’s ContentID system that have led to entirely legal content being blocked or deleted from the platform. Reda also warns of a slippery slope where filtering leads to other unintended consequences, such as the stifling of copyright exceptions including parody or quotation.

During October, Wojcicki posted on the company’s blog, warning that Article 13 could “drastically change the Internet.” The piece was effectively a rallying cry to millions of YouTube creators, who were urged to take to social media to protest the proposed legislation.

Now, however, Reda is warning YouTubers against taking YouTube’s stance as their own, noting that its CEO has been in Strasbourg lobbying in favor of upload filters and is only interested in avoiding legal liability.

“The fear of many YouTubers that internet culture and independent creatives will be sacrificed in this reform is certainly justified. They should however not make the mistake of singing from YouTube’s hymn sheet, whose CEO has only been outspoken against the liability of platforms for copyright infringements, while presenting mandatory upload filters as a reasonable compromise,” Reda says.

“If you look more closely at the countless videos, it’s apparent that most YouTubers are warning of the exact problems that YouTube’s ContentID upload filters are already causing today: unjustified copyright strikes and the automated deletion of entirely legal creative content. YouTube and its YouTubers have very different interests in this debate.”

The fact that Julia Reda is now speaking out so clearly against YouTube is likely to prove somewhat of a conundrum to the music industry critics who have been regularly attacking her on Twitter.

While she has risen above many embarrassingly childish accusations, some have claimed – without any evidence – that she’s somehow shilling for YouTube-owner Google in respect of Article 13.

Clearly, the battle lines in this war aren’t so easily drawn.

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

While Hollywood has its own problems with movie piracy, the position in India is arguably more pressing.

Many of the country’s top movie titles are immediately pirated and placed online, much to the disappointment of film companies nationwide. Aggressive site-blocking appears to have little effect so, in association with the authorities, the problem is being tackled at the source.

Many leaks happen when individuals or groups illegally record movies in cinemas, which is often simply a case of finding a screen and pointing a camcorder or phone towards it. In tandem, there are concerns that in some cases, theater owners themselves may be part of the piracy conspiracy. That, however, is leading to what appears to be overzealous policing.

When movies are shown, it’s common for watermarks to be embedded in the performance, which allows content security companies to trace where recordings take place. Armed with this information, copyright holders are then filing complaints against theater owners, who are reportedly being arrested by police, in the absence of evidence they’re even involved.

This has led to a plea to the Madras High Court by the Film Exhibitors Association (FEA), requesting that police are restrained from making arrests without evidence that theater owners are directly involved with unauthorized ‘camming’ of theatrical performances.

“The film producers were filing complaints against theater owners falsely accusing the latter as being responsible for such piracy and the resulting losses caused to the film producers,” the Times of India reports, citing the FEA.

“Police were arresting or attempting to arrest the theater owners merely on the basis of such complaints, without any inquiry. This makes the theater owner to run from pillar to post to obtain appropriate bail or anticipatory bail. The theater owners cannot be made responsible for all cases of piracy.”

The FEA added that it’s impossible to search all members of an audience for hidden cameras, whether they’re present in phones, pens, or even spectacles. Public prosecutor A Natarajan countered, telling the court that calls for a blanket ban on arrests can’t be entertained and should be denied.

With that, Justice Puspha Sathyanarayana issued an interim direction, ordering the Tamil Nadu Home Secretary and the Director General of Police to organize a meeting of affected stakeholders (film companies, distributors, exhibitors) to try and reach an amicable solution.

The case was adjourned until November 28, 2018.

In an effort to reduce camcorder piracy, last month the Tamil Nadu Theater Owners Association laid down a strict set of rules designed to prevent pirates from recording the latest movies and uploading them to the Internet.

All cinemas in the southern state of Tamil Nadu were told to saturate their entire sites with CCTV cameras, including projection rooms and customer seating areas plus parking and entrance areas. It is not yet clear whether that has happened or if the measures are having any effect.

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

Last month, many key players in the entertainment industries took part in the International Content Protection Summit in Warsaw, Poland.

The summit was organized by the Sygnał Association, supported by the EU’s Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), with an agenda featuring the latest threats and developments in anti-piracy enforcement.

While these type of gatherings are not new, several of the participants used the opportunity to strengthen their ties. International cooperation, they believe, is a key component for successful anti-piracy enforcement efforts.

To stress their commitment to this goal, 34 participants signed a new memorandum of cooperation titled the Warsaw Declaration.

The signees, including BBC Studios, BREIN, Discovery, FACT, HBO Europe, LaLiga, MPA, NBCUniversal, Sky Deutschland, and the Spanish National Police, state that they “acknowledge and understand the need for regular international involvement of major stakeholders.”

According to the summit’s organizers, the “Warsaw Declaration” can help to target the major piracy threats more effectively. This includes the increasingly global reach of cybercrime, new distribution methods, and the use of cryptocurrencies as payment methods.

“Piracy is currently a highly profitable undertaking with a complicated network of relations. There is proof of its connections to other types of crime. said Teresa Wierzbowska, President the Sygnał Association’s board.

“The alarming figures concerning the scale of theft and illegal trade of audiovisual content are a motivating factor to take action,” she adds.

The declaration itself doesn’t include a concrete plan of action. Apart from acknowledging and understanding the need for more collaboration, there’s not much more to it.

What it does say is that the signees hope to increase “awareness” of the “negative impact of piracy on the global economy” among “decision-makers, opinion leaders, media and society,” and persuade them to counteract this.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, Sygnał Association’s Anna Słoboda notes that the declaration is just the first step. The next stage is to turn it into action.

“For us, it was very important to let people from western and eastern Europe meet each other in one place to exchange experiences and contacts. I am sure that it will soon bring results,” she says.

—

A copy of the Warsaw declaration is available here (pdf) and a full list of the signees can be found below as well.

-A+E Networks
-Anti-Piracy Protection
-Association “For Legal Content!”
-Association of Commercial Television in Europe (ACT)
-Audiovisual Anti-Piracy Alliance (AAPA)
-BBC Studios
-BREIN Foundation
-CANAL + Group
-NDS
-Clear Sky Initiative
-Cyfrowy Polsat
-Discovery
-Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT)
-Federazione per la Tutela dei Contenuti Audiovisivi e Multimediali (FAPAV)
-Group-IB
-Guardia di Finanza
-HBO Europe
-International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI)
-ITI Neovision
-Kreatywna Polska
-LaLiga
-Motion Picture Association EMEA
-NAGRA/Kudelski Group
-NBCUniversal International
-OSN
-RettighedsAlliancen
-Sky Deutschland
-Sky Italia
-Sygnał Association
-TeRaPro
-The Spanish National Police
-TVN
-United Media
-Warner Bros. Entertainment

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