Over the years video game developer and publisher Blizzard Entertainment has released many popular game titles.

However, to the disappointment of the developer and the majority of its customers there exists a small subgroup of players who are happy to deceive their opponents to get an edge in Blizzard’s games. Through hacks and cheats these players are often able to dominate the competition with minimal effort.

In an attempt to stamp out this type of abuse Blizzard has now filed a lawsuit against James Enright (aka “Apoc”), the individual behind a popular series of gaming bots. Enright’s software allows users to cheat in World of Warcraft, Diablo and Heroes of Storm, among others.

In a complaint filed at a California federal court, Blizzard notes that the “HonorBuddy,” “DemonBuddy” and “StormBuddy” bots infringe on its copyrights. In addition, the bots ruin the fun for other players, which causes financial damage to the company.

“The Bots created by Enright and his team have caused, and are continuing to cause, massive harm to Blizzard. Blizzard’s business depends upon its games being enjoyable and balanced for players of all skill levels,” the complaint (pdf) reads.

“The Bots that Enright has programmed and helps distribute destroy the integrity of the Blizzard Games, alienating and frustrating legitimate players, and diverting revenue from Blizzard to Defendants,” they add.

Blizzard believes that the bots cause legitimate players to lose interest, costing the company millions in lost revenue. The bot maker, meanwhile, is generating a significant profit.

“As a result of Enright’s conduct, Blizzard has lost millions or tens of millions of dollars in revenue and in consumer goodwill. Meanwhile, Enright and his team have been massively and unjustly enriched at Blizzard’s expense,” Blizzard adds.

Blizzard believes that Enright may have made millions through the bot sales, which start at €24.98 ($27) for the most basic World of Warcraft version.

The WoW Honorbot

Aside from breach of contract, by violating the EULA which prohibits the use of bots and cheats, Enright and his team are accused of copyright infringement.

“Defendants have infringed, and are continuing to infringe, Blizzard’s copyrights by reproducing, adapting, distributing, and/or authorizing others to reproduce, adapt, and distribute copyrighted elements of the Blizzard Games without authorization,” Blizzard writes.

Blizzard asks the court to issue an order against the defendants to prevent them from distributing the software. In addition, they demand actual or statutory damages for the alleged copyright infringements, which could add up to tens of millions of dollars.

The company’s claimed losses are supported by research which has shown that WoW bots can create a massive amount of in-game gold, which raises the prices of items for legitimate users. These users may then lose their motivation and stop playing, hurting Blizzard’s revenue.

At the time of writing the Buddy Forum and the associated website remain operational, claiming that “botting is not against any law.”

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

It’s 2012 and you’re the organization representing the world’s largest movie studios. You’ve just received a bloody nose while failing to get the extremely unpopular SOPA legislation passed. All that SOPA entailed, site blocking included, is now off the table. What do you do, give up? Not a chance.

Help us block, ITC

As revealed last year, the MPAA continued to explore other options to have unauthorized sites and content blocked in the United States, one of which involved leveraging the powers of the International Trade Commission (ITC).

The ITC determines the impact of imports on industry in the U.S. and can tackle unfair trade practices including those involving patents, trademarks and copyright infringement.

The MPAA quietly hoped that it could encourage the ITC to order blocks against ISPs carrying infringing content across U.S. borders. It also hoped it could obtain injunctions against regular ISPs to stop them providing access to overseas “rogue” sites. At the time the MPAA’s lawfirm highlighted several problems, not least that no actual goods are sent across U.S. borders by ‘rogue’ sites.

This is important. The definition of “articles” under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 is what allows the ITC to take action in such cases. The big question is whether an “article” must be a physical item or whether it can relate to content in the digital realm. The answer lies in a case about crooked teeth.

At first view ClearCorrect v. ITC looks like just another boring patent case but it has been closely monitored by the MPAA.

ClearCorrect, a competitor of invisible brace manufacturer Invisalign, had one of its subsidiaries in Pakistan create 3D models of braces. These were sent over the Internet and 3D-printed in its office in Texas, potentially infringing Invisalign’s patents.

Invisalign parent company Align Technologies complained to the International Trade Commission in the hope of getting something done about the alleged cross-border infringement. In the short term it paid off, with the ITC ruling against ClearCorrect while noting that the Tariff Act of 1930 does allow it take action against the transmission of digital files.

ClearCorrect objected against the decision and the case was heard by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Yesterday the Court handed down its decision, overturning the ITC’s initial ruling.

“The Commission’s decision to expand the scope of its jurisdiction to include electronic transmissions of digital data runs counter to the ‘unambiguously expressed intent of Congress’,” Judge Sharon Prost wrote.

“Here, it is clear that ‘articles’ means ‘material things,’ whether when looking to the literal text or when read in context ‘with a view to [the term’s] place in the overall statutory scheme.’ We recognize, of course, that electronic transmissions
have some physical properties — for example an electron’s invariant mass is a known quantity — but commonsense dictates that there is a fundamental difference between electronic transmissions and ‘material things’.”

The Court’s majority 2-1 ruling (Judge Newman dissenting) that the ITC has no jurisdiction in this case and possesses no expertise when it comes to ensuring that the “Internet remains an open platform for all” has upset the MPAA.

“This ruling, if it stands, would appear to reduce the authority of the ITC to address the scourge of overseas web sites that engage in blatant piracy of movies, television programs, music, books, and other copyrighted works,” the Hollywood group said.

After filing a brief in the case, interests group Public Knowledge described the ruling as a “big win” for the open Internet.

“By rejecting the ITC’s attempt to expand its jurisdiction, the Federal Circuit helps to ensure that Internet users have unfettered access to the free flow of information that has proved so useful for innovation and free expression,” said Charles Duan, Director of Public Knowledge’s Patent Reform Project.

“In particular, Judge O’Malley’s concurrence strongly recognized the importance of ensuring that ‘the Internet remains an open platform for all.’ This recognition of the central role that open information flow has played in the digital age is heartwarming to advocates like us who have tirelessly worked to protect that Internet openness.”

Countering, the MPAA chose to cite the opinions of the one dissenting judge.

“As Judge Newman’s dissent trenchantly argues, the majority ‘ignores precedent and logic, and removes a vast body of technology from the protection of a statute designed for its protection.’ We will be watching closely for further proceedings in this case, including potential en banc review, and continue to support the ITC in its efforts to address 21st Century challenges.”

In other words, the MPAA won’t be giving up on its site-blocking ambitions just yet.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Last year BMG Rights Management and Round Hill Music sued Cox Communications arguing that the ISP fails to terminate the accounts of subscribers who frequently pirate content.

The companies, which control publishing rights to songs by Katy Perry, The Beatles and David Bowie among others, claim that Cox gave up its DMCA safe harbor protections due to this inaction.

The case revolves around data gathered by Rightscorp and Cox believes that the anti-piracy company is the driving force behind it, in part to retaliate for Cox’s refusal to forward their infringement notices.

Both parties have been preparing for trial but Cox now believes that one isn’t needed. A few weeks ago the court ruled that Rightscorp spoiled evidence by failing to preserve historical versions of its piracy tracking code. As a result, Cox insists that the entire case should now be dropped.

According to the ISP all evidence of direct copyright infringement relies on Rightscorp’s system. Without the option to assess the accuracy of the tracking technology, it’s impossible to review the reliability and accuracy of the accusations.

“Cox cannot analyze, and the jury cannot assess, the operation or accuracy of Rightscorp’s pivotal systems. That is because Rightscorp intentionally destroyed every version of its technological systems that existed prior to July 15, 2015,” the ISP writes in its motion (pdf).

According to Cox’s legal team the copyright holders and Rightscorp’s failure to keep track of the code changes did not occur by accident.

“Despite actively planning this lawsuit for over three years, Plaintiffs and their litigation agent, Rightscorp, knowingly and intentionally failed to preserve the most critical evidence in the case.”

“As a result of that misconduct, as Judge Anderson found, it is literally impossible for Cox or the jury ‘to know how the Rightscorp system operated during the relevant time period’,” Cox adds.

While Magistrate Judge Anderson ruled that Rightscorp did indeed spoil crucial evidence, he referred a decision of specific evidentiary sanctions to District Court Judge O’Grady.

In its motion Cox is clear about what the final decision should be. The ISP sees a dismissal of the entire case as the most fitting outcome. It’s impossible for a jury to review how reliable some of the most crucial evidence is, so the case should be dismissed, Cox argues.

“In these circumstances, the most appropriate sanction is dismissal, particularly given that Judge Anderson’s factual findings effectively defeat Plaintiffs’ claims in
any event. For the many reasons Cox addresses below, this case should end now,” the motion reads.

The motion will be discussed at an upcoming hearing. In a reply, BMG Rights Management and Round Hill Music have already objected to the request, describing it as an untimely motion for summary judgment.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

As Europe conducts a reassessment of copyright law and its ability to keep pace with technology, the United States is doing likewise.

In a speech during the World Intellectual Property Day celebrations at the Library of Congress in April 2013, Chairman Bob Goodlatte announced that the House Judiciary Committee would carry out a comprehensive review of United States copyright law.

“I am announcing today that the House Judiciary Committee will hold a comprehensive series of hearings on U.S. copyright law in the months ahead. The goal of these hearings will be to determine whether the laws are still working in the digital age,” Goodlatte said.

As of mid-October 2015 the Committee had held 20 hearings on various topics, from the scope of copyright protection and Fair Use, the preservation and reuse of copyright works, to the first sale doctrine and music licensing.

With additional meetings with hearing witnesses now underway, the House Judiciary Committee is conducting a “listening tour” to gather input from those involved in the creative process. After stopping off in Nashville, Goodlatte and other members of the Committee appeared at Santa Clara University in Northern California yesterday. Today they’re hosting a roundtable discussion at the University of California, Los Angeles.

In addition to Google’s senior copyright counsel Fred von Lohmann, Dean Marks, the MPAA’s chief of global content protection, is also expected to attend. Neil Fried, SVP, Government and Regulatory Affairs, says that while the MPAA welcomes the discussion to Hollywood, changes to copyright law aren’t high on its agenda.

“Although not perfect, the Copyright Act is fulfilling its mission of promoting the production and dissemination of creative works,” Fried says.

“In 2014 alone, viewers used lawful online services to access 66.6 billion television episodes and 7.1 billion movies. We expect these TV and film numbers to reach 101.6 billion and 11.7 billion by 2019. Clearly the market and copyright law are working.”

But while the MPAA says it’s broadly satisfied with the law, it insists that more must be done to combat piracy. Cooperation with other stakeholders will provide the solutions the industry is looking for, the movie group says.

“The Internet’s decentralized nature allows anyone around the world to contribute to its content and architecture, but that also means no single entity can solve problems that arise, like piracy,” Fried says.

“That is why we are currently focusing our attention on forging cross-industry, voluntary initiatives to ensure a safe and innovative digital environment, rather than seeking a legislative rewrite of copyright policy.”

And to date there have indeed been significant developments on this front.

In addition to attempting to choke the finances of pirate sites by forging closer relationships with processors including PayPal, MasterCard and Visa, there have been national and international campaigns to ensure that big brands avoid placing their ads on pirate sites. Users have been targeted too.

“The motion picture and recording industries have also partnered with the five largest ISPs to create the Copyright Alert System, a progressive system of alerts that is used to make consumers aware of possible infringing activity that has occurred over peer-to-peer networks using their Internet accounts, provide them with information on how to prevent such activity from happening again, and also inform them of the wide range of legal online alternatives,” Fried adds.

But while some ISPs, processors and advertising networks may be on board, bigger challenges lie ahead for the development of voluntary agreements. For example, the MPAA is desperate to find a simple way to stop pirate sites from easily registering and then using domain names for infringing purposes.

“Even though the terms of service for domain name registrars and registries almost uniformly prohibit the use of domain names for illicit activities, these provisions are rarely enforced,” Fried explains.

To date progress on this front has been slow and in some cases responses have been somewhat hostile.

And of course, the MPAA will be pleased that Fred von Lohmann is expected at today’s roundtable. The Hollywood group is still not happy with how easy it is for Internet users to find infringing content using Google search. Google previously stated that people tend to find infringing content because they’re specifically looking for it, but the MPAA sees things somewhat differently.

“Nearly 60 percent of the queries that led to stolen content contained only generic or title-specific keywords, indicating consumers were not specifically seeking pirated material,” Fried says.

With the heat of the Project Goliath debacle still simmering beneath the surface, the MPAA’s current tone is certainly measured. Only time will tell whether its claimed satisfaction with copyright law will continue longer term should Google and others decide not to play ball.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Every year the United States Trade Representative (USTR) inventorizes what problems local industries face when doing business abroad.

The major Hollywood studios, represented by the MPAA, just submitted their latest overview listing trade barriers across the globe.

The MPAA points out that many countries don’t do enough to deter piracy. This is also a common theme in Europe, where privacy laws and regulations make it harder for copyright holders to go after online pirates.

“Privacy has always been a major issue in the European Union. EU Member States have implemented a number of privacy directives to protect individuals’ personal data,” MPAA writes.

According to the MPAA, European privacy rules are extremely complex and difficult. As a result they are often used against efforts that could help to prevent copyright infringement.

For example, IP-addresses are protected as private personal information in several countries including Italy, where they can only be used in criminal cases.

“All EU Member States have detailed data protection laws. These rules, often very strict, are subject to the interpretation of the national data protection authorities,” MPAA notes (pdf).

“Most of them consider IP addresses as personal data and believe that the privacy rules apply to their use,” they add.

The MPAA points out that privacy rights of citizens often trump the rights of copyright holders, which they believe is a “very problematic” development.

As a result, Internet providers often refuse to cooperate with copyright holders claiming that this violates the privacy of their users. This makes it hard for the content industries to cooperate with these companies in various anti-piracy efforts.

“Telecommunications operators and ISPs constantly invoke data protection rules to avoid any meaningful cooperation with the content sector,” MPAA writes.

“Such restrictive interpretations preclude meaningful cooperation with Internet intermediaries, such as telecommunications operators and ISPs, in particular cooperation to combat IP theft.”

In addition, the MPAA is not happy with the EU Court of Justice decision to no longer make data retention mandatory. As a result, many ISPs no longer keep extensive IP-address logs.

The movie studios believe that data retention is an important law enforcement tool, suggesting that it’s harder to track down online pirates without logs.

“Data retention remains a very valuable tool for law enforcement. Rights holders have always claimed the need for reasonable rules and legal certainty. This decision has created even more legal uncertainty in this field.

“Member States have started to respond to the consequences of this decision with legislation and some have invalidated their rules,” MPAA adds.

The data retention argument is not new, but it’s worth noting that the U.S. itself has no mandatory data retention laws. This makes it hard for the U.S. Government to demand that other countries adopt them.

It’s clear though, that the MPAA is not happy with the increased interest in online privacy. With or without help from the U.S. government, they will continue to try and minimize the impact it has on their enforcement efforts.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.