Back in April, the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), an anti-piracy partnership forged between Hollywood studios, Netflix, Amazon, and more than two dozen other companies, sued Florida-based Set Broadcast, LLC.

The entertainment industry companies accused Set Broadcast of running SET TV, an unauthorized IPTV service offering otherwise subscription TV channels and media without appropriate licensing.

“Defendants market and sell subscriptions to ‘Setvnow,’ a software application that Defendants urge their customers to use as a tool for the mass infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted motion pictures and television shows,” the complaint reads.

Despite the legal pressure, SET TV had remained online but that all changed last week when it suddenly disappeared. In response to customer complaints, SET TV implied that technical issues might be to blame and it would eventually return.

However, a filing with a California District court this week reveals that the SET TV ride appears to be over.

“Setvnow is no longer available. It is no longer marketed and subscriptions are no longer sold,” lawyers for Set Broadcast, LLC reveal in their filing.

What follows is a point-by-point addressing of each issue raised in the ACE complaint, with three features catching the eye: acceptance that they offered a content service, claims that they lack knowledge and information on a large number of points, plus repeated use of the word ‘deny’ whenever infringement is mentioned.

Set TV begins by admitting that it sold subscriptions to its service and acknowledging that marketing material detailed in the ACE lawsuit looks familiar. It also concedes that it encouraged users to download and install the Setvnow software on various devices. The company also agrees that it sold a hardware box that was, at least in part, designed to work with the Setvnow service.

However, in response to claims of marketing efforts informing “customers who want more of a cable box experience” that for just $89, they can “simply turn it on and watch TV” without having to do anything more than “PLUG AND PLAY,” the defendants claim to lack knowledge or information.

From here, at least as far as a technical rebuttal to ACE claims go, the responses are relatively blunt and often repetitive to read.

First up, ACE claimed that defendants sold illegal access to their copyright works, but that’s something Set Broadcast flatly denies.

ACE also noted that while the service provided “hallmarks of using authorized streaming services” such as a friendly interface, customers only paid money to Set Broadcast, not the copyright owners. Set Broadcast says it has no knowledge of how customers perceived the service but admits to not paying any money to ACE “for the Setvnow service.”

To the next dozen points, Set Broadcast claims to have “no knowledge or information”, mostly in response to basic statements of fact such as who the plaintiffs are and where their offices are located.

In response to the claim that defendant Jason Labossiere is the owner and operator of Set Broadcast, LLC, Set Broadcast issues a flat denial but offers no additional information. Further details concerning Nelson Johnson, a manager at Set Broadcast, are also picked over, with questions raised over his employment status and place of residence.

From here, Set Broadcast addresses a number of statements made by ACE members regarding who the plaintiffs are, what they do, and what content they own. On each count, Set Broadcast claims to have no knowledge or information, which makes for fairly bland and unconvincing reading.

That being said, Set Broadcast doesn’t shy away from responding on a number of crucial issues. The company acknowledges that promotional material produced by the plaintiffs, showing that the SET TV service offered 500 channels and “thousands” of “on demand” options for $20, is theirs.

It also admits to selling subscriptions and concedes that the SET TV software facilitated streaming of “captured content”, including live content, and delivered it to Setvnow users. The company also admits to using third-party sources for on-demand content.

But despite admitting to many of ACE’s claims over the marketing and provision of the service, whenever the plaintiffs used the word “infringing” to describe the nature of the content delivered to users, Set Broadcast has a one-word response.

“Defendants’ customers use Setvnow for intended and unquestionably infringing purposes, most notably to obtain immediate, unrestricted, and unauthorized access to unauthorized streams of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works,” ACE wrote.

“Deny,” came the response.

“Defendants promote the use of Setvnow for overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, infringing purposes, and that is how their customers use Setvnow,” ACE added.

“Deny,” Set Broadcast repeats.

With a distinct pattern emerging, there’s no need to detail the one-word response to each of ACE’s allegations including that the defendants willfully and intentionally induced and contributed to the infringement of their rights and that ACE members are entitled to damages and Defendants’ profits in amounts to be proven at trial.

The claim that ACE members are entitled to attorneys’ fees plus preliminary and permanent injunctions are also given the same two-syllable treatment. However, at the end of the filing, Set Broadcast springs into life, detailing three affirmative defenses against all of ACE’s charges.

First up, Set Broadcast claims that ACE failed to mitigate damages. Second, the company states that “Plaintiffs’ claims are barred to the extent Plaintiffs have forfeited or abandoned copyright or failed to comply with necessary formalities.” Finally, Set Broadcast suggests it could be an “innocent infringer”.

“Damages are limited under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2) because Defendants ‘were not aware and had no reason to believe that [their] acts constituted an infringement of copyright’,” Set concludes.

Since SET TV is now apparently a thing of the past, it will be interesting to see how this case develops. While Set Broadcast flatly denies any infringement of ACE members’ rights, it doesn’t deny that it’s been running a pay service which facilitates the delivery of third-party content to its customers.

The big questions now are whether the case will ever head to a full trial and if the defenses cited by SET TV provide more than a sliver of hope for the company.

—

A copy of Set Broadcast’s response to ACE’s complaint 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.

Through a series of new proposals, the European Commission is working hard to modernize EU copyright law.

These plans have not been without controversy. In particular, Article 13 of the proposed Copyright Directive has been widely criticized as it would pressure online services to monitor and filter uploaded content.

The article states that online services are liable for any uploaded content unless they take “effective and proportionate” action to prevent copyright infringements, as identified by copyright holders.

That also includes preventing allegedly infringing files from being reuploaded, which implies some form of hash filtering and continuous monitoring of all user uploads.

Today, the Legal Affairs Committee of the Parliament (JURI) voted on the issue. With a 15 to 10 majority, the Article 13 proposal of Rapporteur Voss was adopted. This means that the plans move ahead in their current form, despite massive public outcry.

Over the past year, we have repeatedly covered the widespread opposition. Legal scholars, digital activists, politicians, all worried that the upload restrictions would violate the rights of regular Internet users.

In recent weeks, the wave of protests swelled. More prominent figures sounded the alarm bell, including Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, the Internet Archive’s Brewster Kahle, and Jimmy Wales from Wikipedia.

The campaign was picked up by the public as well. Roughly 320,000 people have signed petitions urging lawmakers to reject the plans and over the last week more than 50,000 tweets went up mentioning the #SaveYourInternet hashtag.

In addition to Article 13, there was also considerable pushback against Article 11, which is regularly referred to as the “link tax.” This proposal was accepted as well, with a 13 to 12 majority.

Now that the proposal has passed the Committee the plans will move to plenary before progressing towards the final vote on copyright reform next spring.

It also means that they are now much harder to stop or change. That has been done before, such as with ACTA, but achieving that type of momentum will be a tough challenge.

Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda, who suggested alternatives to the controversial proposals, is disappointed with the outcome. However, she’s not giving up yet.

“These measures will break the internet. People will run into trouble doing everyday things like discussing the news and expressing themselves online. Locking down our freedom to participate to serve the special interests of large media companies is unacceptable,” Reda says.

“I will challenge this outcome and request a vote in the European Parliament next month. We can still overturn this result and preserve the free internet.”

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

Soon after the turn of the century, P2P consumption of unlicensed media quickly dominated the file-sharing landscape.

The BitTorrent protocol emerged as the unchallenged kind of peer-to-peer transfers and for many years no rival could get anywhere near its level of market saturation.

Then, soon after the turn of the decade, the tide began to turn. With cheaper, faster bandwidth becoming increasingly available to a broader user base, opportunities to stream content directly from websites gathered unprecedented momentum. What began several years earlier as a relatively niche activity, soon turned into a content monster.

This critical shift in consumption habits was interesting on several fronts, not least since it made piracy accessible to relative novices via the growing Internet-enabled set-top box market.

As a result, illegal streaming is now considered one of the major threats, but various pro-copyright groups are concerned that current legislation doesn’t go far enough to tackle those involved in supply.

The problem was summed up in April 2015 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee by then-Register of Copyrights Maria Pallante.

“Currently, criminals who engage in unlawful internet streaming can only be charged with a misdemeanor, even though those who unlawfully reproduce and distribute copyrighted material can be charged with a felony,” Pallante said.

“This distinction makes no sense. As streaming becomes a dominant method of obtaining content online, unlawful streaming has no less of an adverse impact on the rights of copyright owners than unlawful distribution.”

In a new paper published by the Free State Foundation (FSF), a think tank founded in 2006 which receives regular donations from the MPAA, streaming is again described as a misdemeanor offense and one that should be taken more seriously to protect copyright holders.

In its report ‘Modernizing Criminal Copyright Law to Combat Online Piracy’, FSF notes that copyright holders face difficulties prosecuting mass-scale willful infringement via civil lawsuits. So, to give them the assistance they require, Congress should upgrade piracy via streaming to a felony offense.

“Congress should update criminal copyright law to better address growing copyright piracy taking place through online streaming sites and enabled by illicit streaming devices,” FSF writes.

“Currently, willful copyright infringement via online streaming is only a misdemeanor, whereas willful infringement via digital downloading is a felony when statutory minimums are satisfied.

“This disparate treatment of streaming and downloading has no principled basis. Consumers increasingly access copyrighted video and music through streaming.”

FSF states that punishments for misdemeanor copyright infringement (willful infringements of exclusive rights other than reproduction and distribution) include up to a year of prison and a fine of up to $100,000, or both.

Punishments for felony copyright infringement usually include up to five years in prison or a $250,000 fine, or both. Due to its scope, the latter option for serious offenses is viewed by FSF as a more significant deterrent that can better protect copyright holders.

“By making willful infringement of multiple or high value copyrighted works via online streaming a felony, Congress would empower law enforcement to better combat black market online traffickers in copyrighted content,” FSF adds.

In addition to the more severe sentencing of those who stream to the public, FSF would like to see law enforcement given more tools to catch them in the act in the first instance. In some quarters, its suggestions are likely to be viewed as extremely controversial.

“Additionally, Congress should consider providing federal law enforcement with more tools, including the authority to seek wiretaps to obtain evidence of suspected criminal copyright activities, to combat online piracy. Similar wiretap authority already exists in the case of theft of trade secrets and economic espionage,” FSF writes.

The report isn’t specific as to which players should be disrupted via such legislation, but repeated references to piracy-enabled set-top boxes, addon-enabled software, hosting services and others in the streaming ecosystem indicates a tendency towards plugging loopholes across the board in a largely untested and still-developing market.

What also seems clear is a desire to shift enforcement costs onto the state, rather than them being carried entirely by copyright holders who would otherwise have to engage in difficult and expensive civil litigation.

“Despite suffering substantial harm on account of online piracy, copyright owners are often ill-equipped and financially unable to combat such piracy through civil lawsuits,” FSF reports.

“Pirates of copyrighted content are not often amenable to service of process and to civil litigation. Unsurprisingly, many technically sophisticated online piracy operations are designed to avoid accountability to copyright holders and to the civil justice system.

“Thus, circumstances clearly exist in which the civil justice system is inadequate or unable to address or combat online piracy operations.”

While the terminology used in the FSF report can at times suggest a tightening of the law against those who stream to the public and those who consume streaming content, it eventually makes clear that such legislation should be directed “to online traffickers in copyrighted content, not individual Internet users.”

It also states that “reasonable safe harbor provisions” should exist for online service providers to receive immunity from criminal and civil liability, providing they remove or disable access to infringing content when advised by a rightsholder.

Considering the donations FSF receives from the MPAA, it’s probably safe to assume that the report’s recommendations are broadly aligned with those of the Hollywood group. In that respect, it’s interesting that the studios feel that current law exposes them in some way.

Thus far, tools to tackle administrators of pirate streaming sites in the US don’t appear to have been lacking but perhaps there is currently a little too much room for maneuver.

The full report can be downloaded 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.

The Pirate Bay has more than its fair share of technical inconveniences. Every other week the site goes down for a few hours, or days, just to reappear as if nothing ever happened.

In recent days many users have noticed some hiccups as well, as TPB’s upload functionality is currently broken. According to the recent uploads page, no new torrents have been added since last weekend.

The last torrent was uploaded on Sunday and the recent torrents page suggests that the problems started just before 7:00 a.m. Central European Time.

After that, things went quiet and the official Pirate Bay status page confirms that no new uploads are coming through. What’s causing the trouble is unknown at the moment.

Recent torrents

Several trusted VIP uploaders have mentioned the problem in the TPB forums. They reportedly see an “Error – File empty” notice on their end, no matter what they try.

These upload issues are not completely new, but it’s been a while since problems have lasted this long.

TPB moderator “workerbee” points people to the status page and confirms that the situation is the same for all.

“Everyone is experiencing the same problem. The situation will be sorted out in due course,” the mod notes.

Seasoned uploaders have weathered quite a few stormy periods on the site, so they might not be bothered too much. However, some are losing patience and are growing more pessimistic by the day.

“Been down since Sat.. for uploads,” VIP uploader psspss2 writes. “TPB sinking ship too many holes.”

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, TF broke the news that Justin Sun, the entrepreneur behind the popular cryptocurrency TRON, was in the process of acquiring BitTorrent Inc.

The San-Francisco based file-sharing company confirmed the interest from Sun and last week sources added that details of the sale had been finalized.

One of the questions that remained unanswered is how much the company is worth. This gap has now been filled by TechCrunch, which reports that TRON’s founder agreed to pay $140 million to acquire the company.

According to the report, there are still some outstanding issues regarding the terms of the deal. More than one person claims to have introduced Sun to BitTorrent, which guarantees an extra payout. This has yet to be resolved.

It is unclear what Sun’s plans are for BitTorrent but the existing products, including uTorrent, are not expected to go away. According to a shareholder quoted by TechCrunch, one of the plans is to use the acquisition to “legitimize” TRON’s business, which currently has a controversial reputation.

This is an interesting goal, as BitTorrent itself has also dealt with some controversy of its own. The company was previously asked to do more to combat piracy and a few weeks ago, New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas launched an investigation into the links between uTorrent usage and images of child exploitation.

While the final details are worked out, BitTorrent – or Rainberry as it’s called now – has begun hiring new personnel. The company is currently looking for a recruiter to hire new talent as well as several developers, including a senior iOS Engineer.

BitTorrent is currently working on a new iOS app which will allow users to play videos on their mobile devices. When completed, it will be released on Apple’s App Store.

The $140 million acquisition follows a turbulent time for BitTorrent during which the company was nearly destroyed due to questionable management practices. At the same time, none of the new products, services, and business models it developed managed to surpass the early success it had with uTorrent.

Whether the deal with TRON’s founder is a turning point has yet to be seen. TorrentFreak reached out to the company to find out more about its future plans but, at the time of writing, we have yet to hear back.

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