Back in September 2019, TF discovered the existence of a DMCA subpoena in the United States.

Filed by MG Premium, part of the Mindgeek adult empire, it demanded that Cloudflare should hand over the personal details of two of its customers – YesPornPlease.com and VShare.io – a pair of sites that ostensibly operate as user-generated content platforms.

YesPornPlease is, in particular, a massive operation. The latest stats from SimilarWeb reveal the site servicing more than 100 million visitors in January 2020, a figure that had been steadily increasing over the previous few months.

The information requested by MG Premium included the site operators’ names, email addresses, IP addresses, user histories, posting histories, physical addresses and telephone numbers. Now, several months later, MG Premium is back with a full-blown lawsuit against YesPornPlease and VShare, one that demands an extremely broad injunction and damages that could potentially run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

Filed in a Washington court against “Does 1-20” doing business as YesPornPlease and/or VShare, the lawsuit begins by stating that the conduct of both platforms is both “egregious and willful”.

“Defendants own and operate websites engaged in the business of copying and distributing infringing audiovisual works. Under the guise of acting as a distributor of ‘user-generated content,’ Defendants in fact are directly and knowingly involved in the trafficking of tens of thousands of pirated works – including thousands of works owned by MG Premium,” the lawsuit begins.

While user-generated content sites such as YouTube enjoy flexibility under the DMCA in respect of infringing content uploaded by third-parties, MG Premium insists that the defendants in its lawsuit cannot be placed in this category.

“The YesPornPlease Web Site fails to fulfill the requisite conditions precedent to qualify for the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. Specifically, the YesPornPlease Web Site does not have an appointed registered DMCA Agent. Further, Defendants fail to honor take-down notices sent to the YesPornPlease Web Site and have failed to implement a reasonable repeat infringer policy,” the complaint notes.

While the lawsuit doesn’t reference the earlier DMCA subpoena filed against Cloudflare, it seems that MG Premium is still unable to identify the operators of YesPornPlease or VShare. Noting that the YesPornPlease site is hosted by a company in Russia, MG says it doesn’t know where its owners and operators are located.

Nevertheless, the adult giant insists that the two platforms work in concert to supply infringing content to consumers in the United States and should be held accountable.

“The YesPornPlease Web Site is a pirate website, displaying copyrighted adult entertainment content without authorization or license. The YesPornPlease Web Site is operated in conjunction with the VShare Web Site, wherein purported Internet users desiring to post videos on the YesPornPlease Web Site must actually upload the video to the VShare Web Site and then are directed to ‘copy and paste’ the URL assigned to the uploaded video on the VShare Web Site onto the YesPornPlease Web Site,” the complaint reads.

According to MG, the sites also incentivize users to upload content via an affiliate program.

“By becoming an affiliate to the VShare Web Site, users can earn money for each view of a video on the YesPornPlease Web Site posted through the VShare Web Site. The affiliate’s payout rate is determined based upon a variety of factors, including file size (calculated in minutes), the amount of content downloaded, and the length of time content is watched/viewed. The more content watched, the more money an affiliate makes,” the company claims.

Both sites utilize domain name servers operated by Cloudflare and their identities are hidden by a company called Domain Protection Services, MG Premium claims. The platforms allegedly use many other US-based companies for their operations too, including domain registrar Namecheap and various advertisers supplying ads targeted at the United States market.

The level of infringement alleged in the lawsuit is massive. Between July 2017 and January 2020, YesPornPlease is claimed to have offered 3,078 works owned by MG Premium, each detailed in a massive list in the 233-page complaint. According to the adult company, it sent takedown notices for thousands of URLs but 98% of them were ignored. Furthermore, users who uploaded the infringing videos were never terminated as repeat infringers by either platform.

“Defendants knowingly promote, participate in, facilitate, assist, enable, materially contribute to, encourage, and induce copyright infringement, and thereby have infringed, secondarily infringed, and induced infringement by others, the copyrights in Plaintiffs’ copyrighted work,” the complaint adds.

“Defendants’ acts and omissions allow them to profit from their infringement while imposing the burden of monitoring Defendants’ website onto copyright holders, without sufficient means to prevent continued and unabated infringement.”

As a result, MG Premium claims that the platforms are liable for directly infringing its rights while inducing others to do so. For this the company says it is entitled to statutory or actual damages, potentially running to hundreds of millions of dollars, plus a broad injunction to prevent future infringement.

In respect of the injunction, MG Premium demands that all entities acting in concert or participation with the defendants should be prevented from contributing in any way towards a range of actions that result in its copyrighted works being made available to the public.

On top of preventing hosting providers from doing business with the sites, for example, MG Premium demands that Internet search engines, ISPs, domain name registrars and registries should, within five days, prevent US users of the sites from accessing them by “blocking or attempting to block access to all domains, subdomains, URLs, and/or IP Addresses that has as its sole or predominant purpose to enable to facilitate access to the YesPornPlease Web Site and/or the VShare Web Site.”

At the time of writing, YesPornPlease and VShare are both down and displaying Cloudflare errors.

As reported last week, MG Premium is also pursuing legal action against individual BitTorrent users in Sweden, demanding around $700 in compensation to make supposed lawsuits go away.

The complaint filed by MG Premium against YesPornPlease.com and VShare.io can be obtained 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.

In recent years, adult entertainment outfit Malibu Media has often been described as a copyright trolling operation.

The company, known for its popular “X-Art” brand, has gone after thousands of alleged file-sharers in U.S. courts. Many of its targets settle their cases out of court, but others choose to ignore them.

Not responding at all can be quite risky. If a defendant is named in a lawsuit and properly served, the court typically requires a response. If that doesn’t come, the complaining party can request a default judgment.

This is also what happened to New Jersey resident Amiram Peled, who was accused of downloading 19 titles from Malibu Media after the company linked his IP-address to unauthorized BitTorrent activity. Peled was made aware of these allegations but didn’t show up in court to offer a defense.

As a result, Malibu Media submitted a motion arguing that it’s entitled to $28,500 in statutory damages for copyright infringement and an additional $467.55 in costs.

In many cases, courts grant default judgment requests, as there is no defense. This has allowed Malibu Media to collect dozens, if not hundreds of default judgments. However, in the present matter, a judge decided otherwise.

In a recently released opinion, U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden denied the motion, concluding that Malibu Media isn’t entitled to anything.

The denial is based on a culmination of rulings in similar BitTorrent piracy cases. While Malibu Media portrayed the defendant as the copyright infringer, the Court wasn’t convinced that Peled is the one who actually downloaded the files.

“[T]he Court is concerned that, no matter how reliable the tracing technology is, Peled’s status as the subscriber of the IP address is insufficient to prove that he was in fact the infringer of the copyrighted materials,” Judge Hayden writes.

Judge Hayden carefully reviewed how other cases handled similar allegations. While some ruled that geolocation data and an IP-address is sufficient for a default judgment to be granted, other rulings were more critical.

The order specifically cites the highly critical opinion of Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who threw out a similar case in the District of Columbia.

“In a scathing opinion, Judge Lamberth described Strike 3 as a ‘copyright troll,’ and accused it of using bad technology to support predatory litigation,” Judge Hayden writes, also referencing the part claiming that Malibu appears to use the courts “as an ATM.”

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the Cobbler Nevada v. Gonzales case is mentioned as well. There, the court ruled that identifying the registered subscriber of an IP-address is by itself not enough to argue that the person is also the infringer.

This order trickled down to lower courts, with several judges demanding “something more” than just an IP-address in these cases. This includes a previous denial of a default judgment in New Jersey, and also the present case against Mr. Peled.

“Because Malibu Media has not made a sufficient showing to conclude that Peled in fact infringed its copyright, the Court denies the request for default judgment,” Judge Hayden concludes.

—

A copy of the opinion written by U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden 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.

Over the past couple of decades, campaigns aimed at discouraging people from accessing infringing content online have come in all shapes and sizes. Whether they are effective is still up for debate.

It could be argued that since copyright infringement is now easier than ever, with even novices able to access almost any content they like without paying, none of these campaigns have really worked. On the other hand, however, who knows where infringement would be today without a certain level of overt discouragement.

This week the UK’s Intellectual Property Office published its latest Online Copyright Infringement Tracker report, aspects of which we covered in an earlier article. Interestingly and in addition to a truckload of statistics, the report also covers consumer opinions on what type of anti-piracy campaigns might be effective with the general public.

Framed as “behavior change” mechanisms, the report looked at two broad types of anti-piracy campaigns – those that make it clear that downloading or streaming infringing content is illegal and others that set out to highlight the consequences or repercussions of the illegal behavior.

“Responses to campaigns depended somewhat on the level of experience and frequency of infringing, as well as moral standpoint. Two broad segments emerged,” the report reads.

“Cautious Infringers: Those who worry about infringing the law and the risks of illegal activity [and] Savvy Infringers: Those who are more tech savvy and knowingly access content illegally without much concern over related dangers or consequences.”

It makes perfect sense that different types of campaigns would work on these two groups. Those who are less well-informed and worry more about the chances of getting caught are probably easier to convince. The more tech-savvy bunch often have a tendency to see past scare-tactics, for example, and may even have the means to mitigate most threats.

According to the research, campaign imagery was effective in several areas, such as when the campaign was made more personal by centering it around an everyday scenario, such as watching a football match.

Relevancy is also listed as a matter of importance. For example, it was considered more effective to elicit an emotional response from the viewer (becoming a victim of identity theft) than to err more towards facts, such as being infected by malware.

Furthermore, campaigns must be clear.

“Campaigns with straightforward and uncomplicated messages are preferred. Any form of confusing rhetoric or double meaning runs the risk of taking attention from the core message (e.g. ‘You wouldn’t buy a digital virus…’),” the report notes.

Perhaps most importantly, the tone of campaigns must be carefully considered. The report states that while most believe that detailing the consequences of accessing content illegally needs to be spelled out, “a few take issue with the use of ‘scare tactics’
and feel the ads are too accusatory.”

Perhaps the most obvious example of scare tactics and overly-dramatic tone to date is the ‘You Wouldn’t Steal/Piracy is a Crime” campaign. It has been the subject of various parodies, such as the most well-known one featured in the IT Crowd.

Interestingly, another even more outrageous example surfaced just recently on Reddit and while intentionally offensive in parts, it really drives home the message that going over the top is more likely to elicit mockery rather than change.

So how best to deal with the different types of infringers?

For ‘Cautious Infringers’ it’s suggested that simple messages are best, particularly ones that identify which behavior is illegal and then sign-posting further information and detail. “This is especially important for those who are sent content by others and/or use services where there is some ambiguity around legality (e.g. Kodi boxes),” the report notes.

When it comes to ‘Savvy Infringers’, it’s suggested that giving real-life examples of people who were caught and fined (or were victims of hacking) may help to address the perception that “it will never happen to me.” It’s also noted that simply stating that the behavior is illegal or that people could become a victim of fraud may not be enough.

Instead, there may be some mileage in talking about “potential impact on credit score, losing money, or accessing personal photos etc.”

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

Over the past decade, online piracy has presented itself as a massive problem for the U.S. and its entertainment industries.

It has become a global issue that’s hard to contain, but Hollywood and the major record labels are doing what they can.

One of the key strategies they’ve employed in recent years is website blocking. US companies have taken ISPs to court around the world and also lobbied lawmakers to pave the way for website blocking.

While these companies have a tight grip on international developments, there’s one element that often remains unmentioned. The country that sends the most traffic to pirate sites is the U.S. itself.

This has been the case for years and the latest data, shared by piracy tracking company MUSO, shows that this is still the case.

With 1.2 billion pirate site visits in December 2019, the U.S. is firmly in the lead, followed by Russia (737 million), India (627 million), China (608 million) and Brazil (559 million). The U.S also happens to be the only country that doesn’t block any pirate sites.

Relatively speaking the U.S. also trumps all these countries with 4.17 visits per internet user in a month, except for Russia which has an even higher average (7.21).

Looking at the types of pirate sites we see that streaming is particularly popular in the U.S. Two-thirds of all pirate site traffic goes to streaming sites, followed by direct download portals (19%), torrent sites (8%) and stream rippers (5%).

Compared to two years ago, streaming sites have grown in relative popularity in the US, mostly at the expense of torrent sites.

U.S. pirate site marketshare December 2019

Piracy habits can be quite different around the world, as we highlighted in an earlier article. However, it’s clear that streaming continues to dominate in many countries.

In China, for example, streaming site visits rose from 22% to more than 40% in the space of two years. In Brazil, there was also a rise, with streaming visits going from 47% to 53%.

In Russia, there was a small dip, but streaming is still on top there as well with nearly 60%.

India appears to be somewhat of an outlier among the countries with the most traffic. Direct download sites are most popular there, accounting for 50% of all pirate site visits, which is up from 43% two years ago.

Worldwide, roughly 60% of all pirate site traffic goes to streaming sites, which is about the same as two years ago. The percentage of visits to direct download sites is up a bit, with a quarter of all visits, while torrent sites witnessed a small drop.

While scanning through the data we couldn’t help looking at South Africa, a country that is currently under fire from major US copyright groups. These rightsholders repeatedly pointed out that piracy is rampant, urging the government to do something about it.

Interestingly, the average number of pirate site visits per Internet user is lower in South Africa than it is in the U.S. This means that even when taking the population size into account, South Africa’s piracy problems are actually less in comparison.

This is something to keep in mind when U.S. rightsholders demand tough anti-piracy actions abroad in the future.

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

When large ‘pirate’ services are taken down, the tendency is for copyright holders and/or the authorities to make a lot of noise. Taking out big players is seen as an achievement and is often held up as an example to others not to follow the same path.

Last November, when the founder of Gears Reloaded ‘pirate’ IPTV service Omar Carrasquillo was reportedly targeted in a massive FBI raid, not a single person in authority would confirm the existence of an investigation. Independent eyewitnesses appeared on TV to reveal what they saw but now, several months on, information from official sources remains non-existent.

Carrasquillo, better known by his social media handle OMI IN A HELLCAT, has been talking a lot, however. He’s appeared in TV interviews with his lawyer, decrying the seizure of dozens of luxury cars, huge volumes of jewelry, and “at least” $5.2m in cash. He says the entire operation against him grew out of his position as the founder of Gears, an unpaid tax bill, plus allegations of money laundering.

Nevertheless, he keeps maintaining his innocence. Time and again he’s said that capturing live TV broadcasters from cable providers and streaming channels to end-users over the Internet at an affordable price is completely legal. He found a loophole, he says, and companies didn’t like it.

Until now, Carrasquillo has never directly pointed a finger at who might have prompted the case against him. In a live stream this week, however, he claimed that the second-largest telecoms company in the United States is at the root of his troubles. (Note: most expletives removed)

“There’s nothing worse than coming home and grabbing your bills – electric company you gotta pay, water is an essential, gas you need to cook, $300 cable bill – what the fuck?” he said.

“Everybody hates the cable companies, they’re a monopoly. So when you come out with a service that’s affordable to the world and it’s not illegal, oh my God, I’m in somebody’s pocket.”

And then the bombshell.

“Comcast is paying for this investigation [unintelligible]. There’s an unfiled Comcast claim but why didn’t Comcast sue me? ‘Cos they knew it was an uphill battle so what did they do? They got the FBI involved, tried to take me down,” he claimed.

Coincidentally or not, Carrasquillo’s main home is in Philadelphia. Comcast has its headquarters in the same city.

According to several videos posted by Carrasquillo in recent weeks, he has been working hard behind the scenes through official channels to try and reclaim his property. However, he claims there has been significant pushback after the FBI began using his videos and social media postings as evidence against him.

Insisting again and again that streaming captured TV broadcasts to the public is not illegal, Carrasquillo says he filed a motion to get his property back. In response, the FBI had to send in evidence to support why the goods should continue to be held while the investigation continues.

According to him, they “took his [social media] posts and sent them to the judge”. Since the raid, most of Carrasquillo’s posts have centered on him getting back on his feet, allegedly making significant amounts of money, some of it used to replenish his car collection. He believes those videos are now undermining him.

“Look judge, he’s saying that he’s still a millionaire, he doesn’t need the money. We can still hold it throughout the whole investigation,” he said in a mocking summary of what was allegedly reported to the court.

At this point, Carrasquillo seems to imply that not everything portrayed in those videos and postings should necessarily be taken at face value and that, in some cases, those in the entertainment business may face pressures to impress.

“Entertainers, we have a certain image to uphold and this is why I don’t show anything anymore because frankly, it ain’t nobody’s business. Whether I got it or I don’t got it, I ain’t gonna say it no more. Because obviously you’re using what I say as an exhibit and send it to the judge,” he added.

Carrasquillo says he’s hoping to settle his case with the IRS via a payment plan but he insists that any claims of money laundering are nonsense. He says he’s not upset with anyone working on the case and says that he’s “pretty sure” that the two investigators and district attorneys “are pretty nice guys.” That said, he is unhappy with what he describes as an “unethical process and the events that took place.”

Just before he was raided, Carrasquillo went to the Dominican Republic and he believes this prompted the authorities to act earlier than they would’ve preferred.

“Be honest you guys came to [sic] early I broke no laws apology accepted,” he wrote in a separate post. “While Gears is down 20 more shitty services came up and I don’t see you guys doing shit about it. Want to know why? Steaming isn’t illegal. It’s victimless and not against the law. I did not host shit on servers this was a matter for copyright holders to sue. Not for the FBI to get involved.”

Only time will tell when the other side of this pretty one-sided story will see the light of day. As indicated previously, no one in authority is prepared to comment at this stage.

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