While the DMCA contains a ‘repeat infringer’ clause, copyright cases filed in the United States are now helping to more accurately define what the term means.

Multiple cases involving ISPs Cox, Grande Communications, and their subscribers, appear to be having a knock-on effect on platforms that rely on user-submitted content. No longer as vague as it was, the repeat infringer clause now means that platforms are quicker to take action against persistent pirates.

With its tens of millions of users, Reddit is one such site. All content is submitted by users and while copyright infringements are dealt with following complaints from rightsholders, the site now appears to deal more swiftly with those who continually flout the rules.

As previously reported, Reddit has issued stern warnings to several communities after they were subjected to multiple complaints from rightsholders. It now appears the ban-hammer is being swung with increasing force.

Several sub-Reddits connected to copyright infringing content have recently been banned from Reddit. One of those is FullMoviesOnAnything, a previously 23,000-strong community that posted links to full movies hosted on external sites.

How FullMoviesOnAnything used to look

Following complaints, users are no longer greeted with a large index of links to infringing content. Instead, the sub-Reddit displays the familiar ‘banned’ screen indicating that the community has been shuttered for good.

Permanently banned from Reddit

Another sub-Reddit with a similar name and purpose has also been banned. FullMoviesOnAnything_ (note the underscore) was also nuked, apparently for spam. Like its namesake, however, the community also posted links to copyright-infringing content.

How FullMoviesOnAnything_ used to look

These aren’t the only ‘infringing’ sub-Reddits to be closed in recent times.

TvShowsOnAnything, a nod to its namesake in the movie sector, has also been permanently removed from the site. The same thing happened to /r/fullmoviesonline earlier this year.

While Reddit doesn’t always display precise reasons for a sub-Reddit being banned on each individual landing page, one doesn’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that copyright infringement was an issue in the above cases. In other instances, however, the site is more clear.

The ‘banned’ notices on sub-Reddits including /r/fullmovies and /r/crackedsoftware are crystal clear, with a specific note that the sub-Reddit violated the site’s repeat infringer policy and were shut down.

Repeat infringer policy in effect

As highlighted last month, sub-Reddits dealing with piracy-related topics need to be increasingly careful not to break Reddit’s rules. Tight moderation is the key, along with common sense from users.

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

Last year, Hong Kong-based broadcaster Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB) applied for a blocking injunction in Australia against several unauthorized IPTV services.

Under the Copyright Act, the broadcaster asked the Federal Court to order ISPs including Telstra, Optus, Vocus, and TPG plus their subsidiaries to block access to seven Android-based services named as A1, BlueTV, EVPAD, FunTV, MoonBox, Unblock, and hTV5.

TVB’s application was unusual in that it not only required ISPs to block URLs, domains and IP addresses related to the technical operation of the services, but also hosting platforms akin to Google Play and Apple’s App Store that host the app.

Back in May, due to the relative complexity of the application, Justice Nicholas reserved his decision, telling TVB that his ruling could take a couple of months after receiving his “close attention.”

In a ruling handed down by the Federal Court yesterday, TVB discovered it had been worth the wait.

Justice Nicholas notes in his judgment that the primary purpose of the illicit streaming set-top boxes is to facilitate the infringement of copyright by making such material available in Australia without permission from copyright owners. He also notes, however, that many people using these devices did not know they are infringing copyright.

“Be that as it may, I regard as flagrant the copyright infringements of the persons who have made the TVB broadcasts available online, including those persons responsible for the establishment and maintenance of the target online locations that make it possible for users of the streaming devices to view the TVB broadcasts either in close to real time or at some later time using the VOD service,” the Judge writes.

In an earlier hearing, TVB was confronted with the fact that some of the content it broadcasts has uncertain copyright status in Australia. While Hong Kong is a member of the World Trade Organization, it is not a party to the 1961 Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations.

The Judge says that considering the low volume of that content, blocking would not be an issue.

“I accept that access to some of content that was originally broadcast (ie. which was not pre-recorded) in which copyright does not subsist may also be blocked, but my strong impression from the evidence is that this is likely to constitute a relatively small proportion of the total content the subject of TVB’s television broadcasts in Hong Kong,” he notes.

“This is not a case, in my view, where blocking orders, if made, will significantly curtail non-infringing use of the streaming devices.”

The Judge adds that other than blocking, TVB has no other practical remedies available to curtail infringement of its rights. This is due to the likelihood that the operators of the service are “almost certainly” based overseas and “impossible” to track down.

“Obtaining any form of effective injunctive relief against them in Australia is not a realistic option,” Justice Nicholas adds.

ISPs including Telstra, Optus, Vocus and TPG now have 15 days to block the “online locations” supplying content and services to the infringing set-top boxes in Australia. Meanwhile, TVB continues its battle against pirates.

“Actions are being taken by TVB in Singapore and other overseas markets to block piracy websites. We will keep in contact with the Hong Kong government to push similar site-blocking in Hong Kong,” a TVB spokesman said.

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

Earlier this year, several major Hollywood studios, Amazon, and Netflix filed a lawsuit against Dragon Media Inc, branding it a supplier of pirate streaming devices.

Under the flag of the newly formed anti-piracy group ACE, the companies accused Dragon of using the Kodi media player in combination with pirate addons. As such, the company facilitates mass copyright infringement, it was argued.

While the lawsuit remains ongoing, the legal pressure prompted Dragon Box to take a good look at its business. With ACE filing lawsuits against several ‘streaming boxes,’ the problem was not going away anytime soon.

“It’s been a tough 9 months for the company and the industry,” the company writes in a Facebook message picked up by Cord Cutters News.

However, Dragon Box is not throwing in the towel. The company will change its business model and promises to continue serving the latest entertainment, albeit at a cost.

“Instead of closing our doors and shutting down all boxes and riding off into the sunset we decided that it was in the best interest of you the customers and the company to change our business model..,” Dragon Box writes.

The company adds that it will continue to try and bring customers “the best legal content we can and add in as many services we can to make Dragon Box the box that beats any competitors out there.”

While the announcement isn’t very concrete, a company representative informs TorrentFreak that they plan to officially announce their “Blend TV” subscription service next week.

This service, which has a similar website design as the box seller, is operated by uMedialink LLC and works on various platforms and devices. However, it does come with a subscription, starting at $39.95 per month for access to 65+ US Channels, including live sports streaming.

Blend TV’s channels

While Blend TV is not exactly a household name, its FAQ section notes that it is perfectly legal.

“Absolutely! BlendTV has the required rights and permission’s for the distribution of all our channels and movies on demand,” Blend TV’s website reads.

Dragon Box has also put up their boxes up for sale again. However, these are completely different to the ones that were offered last year. They are configured for easy access to Blend TV, and no longer come with Kodi and infringing add-ons pre-installed.

TorrentFreak spoke to someone familiar with the situation, who explained that this move was inevitable. The company believes that this change is in their own best interests and the interests of their customers.

Dragon Box still believes that online streaming is the future. And they hope that, by partnering with Blend TV, they can continue doing business without legal trouble.

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

In March 2017, the Premier League obtained a blocking injunction from the High Court which compelled ISPs including BT, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin Media to block unauthorized soccer streams under Section 97a of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act.

A second order was handed down by the High Court in July 2017, running from August 12, 2017 to May 13, 2018. An extension was granted by the Court in July 2018.

Given the claimed success of the blockades and the problem of live sports piracy generally, other sports organizations showed interest in the scheme. One of those was Matchroom, the owner, manager, and promoter of various sporting events.

Although the company has interests in darts, snooker, and poker, it is best known for its involvement in boxing. World champion Anthony Joshua and former champions Kell Brook and Tony Bellew have all featured in Matchroom bouts, and all of these events have been heavily pirated online.

Now, however, Matchroom is hoping to put an end to that practice in the UK following a successful application to the High Court.

Following in the footsteps of the Premier League, Matchroom applied for an injunction against ISPs BT, EE, Plusnet, Sky, TalkTalk, and Virgin Media. None of the ISPs appeared to represent themselves and either supported or did not oppose the application. As a result, the application was considered “on paper”.

Sky has an exclusive agreement with Matchroom to broadcast the company’s events. Matchroom owns the copyrights when Anthony Joshua fights and Sky owns them when other fighters appear. However, Joshua is fighting this Saturday night against Alexander Povetkin at Wembley so for the sake of these proceedings, Sky assigned the rights to Matchroom.

Anthony Joshua is a huge draw and according to the High Court order, his previous fights have been heavily pirated, depriving both Matchroom and Sky of substantial pay-per-view revenue. Since Sky is losing money from piracy, the company supports Matchroom’s application as it did with the Premier League’s.

While the blocking order sought was similar to those previously granted to the Premier League and later UEFA, there are two key differences.

“First, because of the irregular timing of the Events, and in particular PPV Events, it is not possible for the Target Servers to be identified in quite the same way,” Justice Arnold writes.

“Although the criteria are very similar, they are to be applied by a particular form of monitoring carried out in a seven-day period prior to each Event. The details of this are confidential, in order to prevent circumvention. While it creates a theoretically greater risk of over-blocking, Matchroom’s evidence is that in practice there should be no real difference.”

Secondly, the Premier League and UEFA orders cover part or all of a season, dates that are already planned. In the boxing world, however, dates of bouts are fluid, so Matchroom has been granted the ability to notify the ISPs of upcoming events at least four weeks in advance.

“[T]he order is proportionate. It does not impair the rights of the Defendants to carry on business,” Justice Arnold writes.

“To the limited extent that it interferes with the rights of internet users to impart or receive information, the interference is justified by a legitimate aim, namely preventing infringement of Matchroom’s and Sky’s rights on a large scale, and it is proportionate to that aim.

“It will be effective and dissuasive, no equally effective but less onerous measures are available to Matchroom, it avoids creating barriers to legitimate trade, it is not unduly complicated or costly and it contains safeguards against misuse.”

The order handed down by the High Court in Matchroom’s favor will run for two years and will be in place to tackle piracy during this Saturday’s much-anticipated fight.

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

Last week the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that ISPs are entitled to compensation for looking up the details of alleged copyright infringers.

This verdict, a result of a dispute between Rogers and movie company Voltage Pictures, can have far-reaching consequences as it makes so-called “copyright trolling” more expensive.

However, there is another nugget in the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion that may be helpful to people who are wrongfully accused. In his comments, Justice Russell Brown notes that the owner of an IP-address isn’t automatically guilty.

“It must be borne in mind that being associated with an IP address that is the subject of a notice under s. 41.26(1)(a) is not conclusive of guilt,” he writes.

While this comment doesn’t change the outcome of this case, it certainly carries some weight. And Justice Brown is even more specific, explaining why the person connected to the IP-address isn’t automatically guilty.

“As I have explained, the person to whom an IP address belonged at the time of an alleged infringement may not be the same person who has shared copyrighted content online.

“It is also possible that an error on the part of a copyright owner would result in the incorrect identification of an IP address as having been the source of online copyright infringement,” Justice Brown notes.

From the Court’s ruling

The comments were highlighted by Law Professor Michael Geist earlier this week, who notes that this is good news for accused file-sharers. The Supreme Court comments clearly suggest that an IP-address alone may not be good enough to build a case.

In other words, future defendants have a powerful reference to highlight in their defense.

“While some may feel that they have little alternative but to settle, the Supreme Court’s language sends a reminder that IP address alone may be insufficient evidence to support a claim of copyright infringement,” Geist says.

“Those that fight back against overly aggressive notices may find the claims dropped. Alternatively, contesting a claim would require copyright owners to tender more evidence than just an allegation supported by an identifiable IP address.”

For an on-the-ground analysis, TorrentFreak reached out to James Plotkin of law firm CazaSaikaley, who represented two defendants in file-sharing cases recently.

He also sees Justice Brown’s statement as favorable to defendants who have not shared any infringing works themselves.

“When one reads the first two sentences of paragraph 41 together, it appears Brown J. is intimating, though not outright saying, that only the person who shares the work might be liable for infringement,” Plotkin tells us.

While it’s good news for defendants, the attorney also notes that the Court’s comment is made “obiter dictum.” This means that it’s part of the non-precedential part of the opinion, which is open to debate.

“That said, it still holds persuasive value, especially since it was stated on behalf of eight members of the Supreme Court,” Plotkin adds.

For now, file-sharing cases in Canada will continue, but perhaps the Court’s comments will inspire defendants and their attorneys to push back a bit more, when appropriate.

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