TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

U.S. Judge Dismisses “Copyright Shakedown” of Foreign Video Sites

Tube sites EmpFlix and TNAflix, which grew out of the famous BitTorrent trackers Empornium and PureTNA, were targeted in 2011 by an adult rightsholder company in a copyright case. If successful it could have seen the sites losing their domains and being shut down. However, in a case described by their lawyers as “higher-end versions” of the current wave of BitTorrent troll suits, the non-US based sites have just come out the winners after a U.S. judge dismissed the case.

In February 2011, FraserSide IP LLC, a subsidiary of adult entertainment company Private Media Group, filed a complaint against Youngtek Solutions Limited, the owners of two “tube” sites called EmpFlix and TNAflix.

Specializing in adult content, the sites will be familiar to many readers since they were heavily promoted by the now-defunct Empornium and PureTNA BitTorrent trackers several years ago.

Fraserside alleged that both EmpFlix and TNAflix were guilty of contributory, vicarious and the inducing of copyright infringement along with various other trademark and other infringements.

The adult company served a copy of a summons and complaint on Youngtek agent in Cyprus during April 2011 (but not in Greek, the local language), and followed this by initiating the process for default judgment in the United States. Along with argument that Youngtek had not been properly served, the company filed a motion to set aside any default. During July 2011, U.S. District Court Judge Mark W. Bennett sided with Youngtek and denied Fraserside’s motion.

By April 2012 things had switched around somewhat, with Youngtek filing a motion for summary judgment on the basis that it is a not a United States-based company nor does it have connections to Iowa where it was being sued.

In December 2012 Fraserside objected, claiming that Youngtek’s online activities were enough to establish a sufficient basis for specific personal jurisdiction under Iowa’s long-arm statute.

The adult company said it could show that one person with an Iowa IP address had purchased a three-day premium membership for one of Youngtek’s websites for one dollar. The company also said that during a period of two years EmpFlix had 1.248 million visits from Iowa users (0.17% of its total traffic) and TNAflix had 2.197 million (0.14%). Both sites, Fraserside said, also used US-registered .com domains.

But would this be enough to hold a foreign company liable for alleged infringements carried out in the United States? According to the Judge, absolutely not.

Despite accepting that TNAflix, Empflix and Youngtek had “intentionally infringed Fraserside’s registered copyrights and trademarks”, in a ruling handed down yesterday District Court Judge Mark W. Bennett decided in favor of Youngtek and granted the company’s motion to dismiss.

“Youngtek is a Cyprus based company. Youngtek has no offices in Iowa, no employees in Iowa, no telephone number in Iowa, and no agent for service of process in Iowa. No Youngtek officer or director has ever visited Iowa,” the Judge began.

“Youngtek does not maintain any of its servers in Iowa. Youngtek’s complete absence of contacts with the State of Iowa is the antithesis of the type of continuous and systematic contacts necessary for exercising general personal jurisdiction over it,” he added.

Judge Bennett said that the sale of a single three-day pass to one user did not demonstrate “intentional, continuous, and substantial contacts with Iowa”, adding that Fraserside had failed to show that Iowa courts have general jurisdiction over Youngtek.

So what about the millions of visits to the sites from Iowa users? Still no good according to the Court.

“Fraserside has offered no materials whatsoever to support its assertion that visitors to Youngtek’s websites from the United States have uploaded, downloaded, or viewed Fraserside’s films,” Judge Bennett wrote, adding that no evidence had been presented to show that Youngtek bought its domains through a US company either.

“Fraserside’s utter lack of any evidentiary materials to support its assertions is particularly surprising since Fraserside’s submission comes after over six months of jurisdictional discovery,” he added.

Judge Bennett concluded by stating that the maintenance of the lawsuit would “offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” and dismissed the case.

Evan Fray-Witzer of Ciampa Fray-Witzer and co-counsel Val Gurvits of the Boston Law Group, the lawfirms that defended Youngtek, say this kind of case has parallels with many of the copyright-troll style lawsuits the U.S. is witnessing at the moment. Fray-Witzer says there are a dozen more similar cases against other sites currently underway.

“We think that these kinds of lawsuits are simply higher-end versions of the BitTorrent suits – an attempt to shake down foreign cloud storage companies by suing them in far flung jurisdictions under the threat of having their businesses shut down through pre-trial asset and domain name seizures,” Fray-Witzer told TorrentFreak.

“The decision [in the Youngtek case] is an important one because the Court took a real hard look at some cutting edge jurisdictional questions and said that it’s not enough simply to show that there were a lot of visitors to a site from the United States.”

Fray-Witzer adds that the decision by Judge Bennett was the right one.

“If our courts start dragging foreign companies and individuals into the U.S. simply because they run a site where infringing materials may have been posted, then there’s no good argument that U.S. citizens and companies can’t get dragged into Court in China (or wherever) because they host a site that speaks favorably of Falun Gong or the Dalai
Lama,” he concludes.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • PBFTW

    Common sense in a US court? The world has gone mad!!!

    • BuddhaFacePalmed

      Didn’t you know? Common sense is so rare, it’s a superpower nowadays ;-)

    • Guest

      The only conclusion is that judges weren’t paid off. ;)

      • Anonymous

        Or were, but by a different group this time

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Yes. By the people of the United States. shameful.

          To expand on that – in the US you can certainly buy anyone as much as you can elsewhere. But the US being aware of the power of money apparently has a rather well functioning internal audit system.

          So does Sweden. The difference being that when Sweden’s internal audit points out for the umpteenth year in a row that there is trouble with the judiciary, no one listens.

          If the US internal audit says the same, an inquisition is called.

        • Tactical Nuclear Penguin

          Warning, Julia’s link is to spam, Flagged.

      • Guest

        Correct. It is also a prime example of why not to register any business in the US.
        Eventually they will realise they are only cutting their own revenue but it may take a long time. If you’re a tech company especially, it is no longer an option to establish yourself, or bank, in the USA. Te coming decade will witness a fall in startups there. Then there will be the brain-drain the UK experienced in the 80′s.

      • Corrupted

        Dam! FuckedSide IP LLC did’nt know that they have to bribe the judge!

        What a pack of losers!

    • bobmail

      Actually, there is little common sense here. Rather, it’s another great example of why the law the of the land in the US has not caught up with the idea of off shore “providers”. The law is unable to handle the concept of a company in Cyprus providing illegal services to Americans. There is no proper legal construct to handle it.

      It’s the sort of thing that jackwads like Fat Kim rely on to make their money.

      You would be foolish to assume that the laws won’t be changed at some point in the future to better address this sort of thing.

      • Anon

        Another American that thinks their way of thinking is the right one. A country has a right to declare piracy legal you know? Whether or not you think it is “right” or not is not the issue. It is a foreign country and they have the right to make their own laws.

        A global order is not the solution Hitler. Get used to the fact that someone else sees the world completely different than you and has the right to create their own utopia within the world. If anything your country can go after it’s citizens that access the illegal content, nothing more.

        • Cast Away

          So, based on the bobmail’s words, Cyprus is like an evil place,
          the funny thing is, if you travel to a different state inside USA,
          you can do things that are considered illegal in other ones,
          but are perfectly legal over there and vice versa.

          It’s ironic to talk about the terrible things that other countries do,
          when your own house is so dirty.

          Here are more examples:

          http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/15/10-reasons-the-u-s-is-no-longer-the-land-of-the-free/

          Go and bring freedom to other countries, send your respectable “democracy”,
          while you commit the same acts you condemn.

        • Corrupted

          “It is a foreign country and they have the right to make their own laws.”

          Unless they got invaded by the US.

          This is why the US is always conducting ruinous and destructive wars because of corporate war mongers such as this paid corporate troll assigned to Torrent Freak and such as the corporate executive assholes who pay him.

          After we hang them all we will feel better and the world with us.

      • Anyone

        jurisdiction is important

        the US should have no say in what foreign companies do or don’t do or whether what they are doing is illegal

        but if you don’t think jurisdiction is important I’m sure we’ll find some country where stuff you do is illegal and simply prosecute you there

      • dondilly

        Just because a service may be illegal in the USA does not mean a US court has jurisdiction. In the case of a US citizen utilising an offshore service, it is the US citizen who is making a personal import of that service. This is the case especially where the service has no advertising targeted to attract US business.

        If you recall the cases in the US surrounding offshore gambling sites. The feds claimed juristdiction as the sites were targetting the US directly through TV/media ads and sponsorship of US sports events. There was also a specific statute that barred US regulated financial institutions from processing tractactions between US citizens and non US regulated gambling sites.

        Even then, the feds/DOJ abused due process in their usual manner via plea bargain from lock you up and throw away the key to mere us asset seizure on admition of guilt to ensure the issue of jurisdiction was never tested.

        That would ultimately been KDCs fate too but the feds got more t than they bargained for

        • bobmail

          “Just because a service may be illegal in the USA does not mean a US court has jurisdiction”

          Actually, as soon as the service is offered in the US, there is jurisdiction per US law for the part of any transaction that happens in the US. Taken to the extreme, that would include “ad supported” business models that make money when US surfers click, but is much more easily understood when a US citizen pays for a service, which while provided by a company outside of the US is actually consumed in the US.

          The reality here is that the laws on the books don’t spell this out well enough, and scammers and thieves use that to their advantage.

          @ Cast Away: Actually, Cyprus can be nice (but has some of it’s own issues). But many companies are located their for business purposes, which have plenty to do with tax avoidance, liability avoidance, and the like. There is no passing of judgement on the laws of a given country, except that in the same manner that you say US law cannot apply to a company outside of the US, there is no reason to assume that the laws of that country should rule a business transaction to a US resident in their home or office. You cannot have it only one way, it has to apply in both directions.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “Actually, as soon as the service is offered in the US, there is jurisdiction per US law for the part of any transaction that happens in the US….”

          That, in this case, would be recipience of services and nothing else. The US beef can and must exclusively be with the end customer.

          There is ample precedence for how this works. And once again you imply there is any alternative other than insisting US law is Global law.

          “…Taken to the extreme, that would include “ad supported” business models that make money when US surfers click…”

          France did try to imply that Google ought to be taxed for generating ad revenues from french citizen a few years ago. Every lawyer on the planet laughed at them. As they would laugh at you if they heard you repeat the gallic blunder.

          Ad revenue is generated in whatever country where the ads are actually paid for. And nowhere else. Until then, you see, no fiscal transaction has taken place.

          “…but is much more easily understood when a US citizen pays for a service, which while provided by a company outside of the US is actually consumed in the US.”

          And this is where your argument spirals into screaming lunacy. By that argument, buying a banana in Mexico and eating it in Texas would mean you legally speaking bought the banana in Texas and now owe the state sales tax.

          “The reality here is that the laws on the books don’t spell this out well enough, and scammers and thieves use that to their advantage.”

          The reality, as spelled out above, is that you don’t have a fucking clue because the laws on the books do spell out – in painstaking clarity – all the relevant aspects of the situation.
          Judge Bennett apparently shares this assessment and does not refer to any ambiguity when handing down his ruling. Indeed, he comes as close to calling the plaintiff an idiot as it is possible for a judge to do without violating court protocol.

          As can clearly be seen.

          No, bobmail. whereas you only used to stroll in the periphery of “Anon”‘s la-la-land this time you apparently decided to detour straight across it.

        • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

          “he comes as close to calling the plaintiff an idiot as it is possible for a judge to do without violating court protocol.”

          I dunno, keep an eye on Prenda, I have a feeling the judges dealing with them will show how close to the line a judge can really get.

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        “Actually, there is little common sense here. Rather, it’s another great example of why the law the of the land in the US has not caught up with the idea of off shore “providers”.”

        Where there is no common sense is in your argument. Honestly, given that you and “Anon” keep harping on economical interests I would have imagined that you’d be able to see what a shot under the waterline it would be for US finances if the USA became known as a pariah for offshore interests where the only guarantee you will have internet representation tomorrow is if no one has ever tried to lodge a claim against you.

        “The law is unable to handle the concept of a company in Cyprus providing illegal services to Americans. There is no proper legal construct to handle it.”

        And there never will be, while Cyprus is still Cyprus instead of a US state. The same way you can not prevent an american from going to Amsterdam and smoke all the pot he can handle.

        “You would be foolish to assume that the laws won’t be changed at some point in the future to better address this sort of thing.”

        You realize you are talking about World War III, I hope? Because there is no option falling short of complete global takeover which will insure that americans can not go to another nation and perform acts considered illegal in the US.

        That’s in essence what you propose.
        And you start it off by talking about common sense. Priceless.

      • http://geekhideout.net/ The G33K

        Maybe you should look up a nice little thing called comity (Legal Reciprocity) before you go spouting off bullshit about laws in one country unable to handle illegalities in another and how there is no construct to handle it.

        Until then you’re just another wannabe shill talking out of their arse

        • bobmail

          Not relevant at all. “Legal Reciprocity” as you see it doesn’t apply here, because it’s not even the question.

          Here’s the problem: A piracy site exists in country A, but doesn’t offer any service in it’s home country. That country also has very weak copyright laws, and doesn’t go after anyone for violating copyright, even on a commercial level.

          The site is operating on servers in countries B and C, both of which are also light against piracy. Further,as the site isn’t “owned” in those countries, there is no legal entity to go after, so the sites stay up.

          The user in the US goes to this site, and “buys” access to watch the last 20 minutes of a pirate movie. Selling that access in the US is illegal, plain and simple.

          Okay… so now you run into the legal challenge. In country A, no illegal act occurred. The payment processor isn’t in that country, and the buyer is outside of the country, the content is outside of the country, so there is no actual piracy for that country to deal with.

          Country B and C do have distribution of copyright work, but without a legal entity to charge, it’s hard. Again, since the payment processor and site owners are in other countries, it’s hard to get a grip on them legally from this site, do they tend not to do anything.

          Yet, we all know an illegal act occurred.

          The laws, as they sit, are not able to easily handle this issue, where the crime is spread over many countries, and occurs piecemeal in a manner that does not specifically create very much for the law to chew on in any one of those places.

      • Who

        you can change laws all you want, it’s the law JURISDICTION that matters.

      • Guest

        Read @NoGoUSA – (entry further down)

        If his/her reply is indicative of entrepreneurs worldwide, the US is about to lose tens of thousands of internet traders in the coming years. Billions in tax revenue down the shitter because a monopoly paid politicians to support their failing business model. If you can’t see the reasoning behind why a government should never take sides to protect ‘old tech’ models, then it no wonder the economy of America is running backwards down a sink-hole.

        Let the dinosaurs die. They have had their day.

      • Guest

        So what do you call what ICE has been doing, seizing domains?

        It’s already been proven that you don’t need laws like SOPA. Get over it.

      • Whatever

        You don’t seem to be able to decide which countries laws you actually want to follow. So which country is it going to be (up until now) ? Sweden, Usa or Hong Kong (China).

        Secondly you and your nejtillbobmail mates always state that the law is above all. Now all of a sudden you state that the law is flawed while at every ruling which you actually like you say it is perfect ?

        You and your fellow MAFIAA drones keep contradicting yourself and lying.

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      Not exactly…in general a rather large number of US judges have judged in favor of dismissal where the mass extortion suits have been concerned.

      Indeed, quite a number of judges have added commentary which indicated that the judge in question has been less than pleased at having to waste valuable courtroom time on a plaintiff coming in and saying:

      “We want to sue ten thousand people.”

      “No your honor, we do not know where these people are”

      “No your honor, we do not know who these people are”

      “No, your honor, we do not know whether these people have in fact downloaded or not, but their ip adress was seen on the internet – that’s like this little number…”

      “Um, no your honor, we don’t have any evidence on most of these people”

      “Um, no, your honor, we would not like to be held in contempt for making a fool out of you. But we would still like to sue…”

    • Anonymous

      A stereotypical movie villain: “You may have defeated me this time, but I will be back!”

      *Cackle* *Cackle* *Cough* *Disappear until next episode*

      For 100 episodes, which one will win: the poor or the rich?

  • Anonymous

    good to see this verdict and the sense the judge used to reach it. i am still waiting for the day that a company is sued from outside the USA under the same terms, same conditions/circumstances as US companies keep trying to sue from inside the US. i bet there will be all hell let loose! it’s always fine when a US company wants to extend it’s reach to encompass everything, everywhere, but in reverse, those same companies (and i’ll bet, the government as well) will refuse to comply! same old story. ‘i am American, do what i tell you’! fucking arrogant arse holes!!

    • dondilly

      Well the US gov is very much ‘do as i say not as i do’. I found it. Highly hypocritical clinton last year bleating on about the importance of freedom of speech and access to an uncensored internet every time one of the arab spring countries shut down the net while at the very same time trying to ram through pipa and sopa at home and strongarming countries into signing up to acta and 3 strike disconnects and if that wasnt enough, brutalising occupy protestors for exercising their 1st ammendment rights.

  • MF

    Good ruling, but I find it hard to cheer for either side… it’s like scum fighting scum, whichever side you cheer for… you’re cheering for scum.

    • Anon

      The other scum have a lot of money behind them.

  • ken147

    Up yours FraserSide!!!

    I’ll show myself out……

    • ITakeAPotatoChipAndEatIt

      Adapt to “Up Your FraserSide” the new internet insult.

  • frozar

    Geeze, now they’ll just have to find a judge who will agree with them.

    • Guest321

      Or they can bribe this judge and make him see reason.

      • Christopher Kidwell

        If you have to bribe a judge to spout your PoV, you are not ‘making them see reason’, you are a criminal who is manipulating our system of justice.

  • Guest321

    Considering you are still spamming away knowing very well that you not wanted here, I would say common sense is a very rare commodity indeed.

  • dondilly

    What i think is probably the most significant aspect of this ruling relates to domain seizures.

    Even ICE have gone after the .net and .com domains of foreignn sites based on the argument that while these are ‘non geographic’ domains, the TLDs are managed by US companies.

    This judge is looking through that and appears to be arguing that the nationality of the company that sold the domain is what is important, in other words jurisdiction is determined by location of the nameservers where the site administers its domains as these DNS servers usually belong to the company who sold/registered the domain.

    If this has the potential to stand as case law, it won’t be long before you hear both ICE and Godaddy squealing.

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      …didn’t think of that. Precedence case for determining domain nationality?

      You know, if the MPAA and RIAA have the smarts of a sack of soggy noodles they’ll have a hundred lobbyists screaming themselves hoarse about this within the day…

  • Monalisa

    normal judge i will say.

  • NoGoUSA

    My guess the US has seen a massive backlash from the MegaUpload debacle, I for one have not renewed several .com/.net domain names that were perfectly legal in any country along with dropping 4 US servers I had had and upgraded over the last 10 years. If the US act like internet terrorists I won’t do business with them.

  • Andrew Lee

    To top this off they should fine these assholes for abusing the court. They cost taxpayers money every single time they do this bullshit.

    • MadAsASnake

      In the UK, there is a list of people that are banned from filing cases because of prior abuses. These creeps should all find their names on those lists…

  • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

    Oh Lord!!

    It seems that, collectively, we’re best described as bungee jumping manic depressives.

    Why?

    By my count, we spend (on average) one day trying to survive the good news (high fives untill our hands fall off); and, exactly the same amount of time barely surviving the bad news (Don’t Jump! Don’t Jump!).

    Yesterday was all about PayPal’s slow eviction of p2p from the financial system.

    I needed a Pommegranette Martini the size of the Meditteranian.

    I barely managed to get two brain cells interested in the question of the American government’s insistence on non-reciprocal extra-territoriality.

    The two brain cells agreed that the application of US military power is always secondary to the always primary purpose of achieving extra-territorial acceptance of American national interests within the jurisdicctions of other Countries. Whether it is forbearance on Drones taking out people in a Land Rover in Pakistan; the British Government agreeing to extradite one of its citizens for trial in the US on alegations that are not criminal in Britain; or. New Zealand, agreeing to SWATT Kim DotCom’s home and take down MegaUpload, the easy key to expressing America’s global power is always extra-territoriality.

    Today, halfway through the Mediterranian, reading this article, my eyes bugged out; and, I fell into one of those long moments of sacred silence that come over me whenever important questions are busy answering themselves.

    “That’s right!” I heard a voice say, “Today is a Manic Day!”

    I heard myself, “Oh Lord!”

    “That’s Right! Great News! People will conclude that what’s at stake in this case is primarily whether Copyright Trolls have an easy or hard time extorting victims; but, what is important here is the American Courts setting defined limits on the claims of private and governmental Administrative Agencies for extra-territorial reach. The Court’s answer is, “NO! You can NOT expect to Try the Corporate Enteties of foreign countries in the US without having met the legal requirements for American jurisdicction!! …………..Are you taking this down?”

    I was writing furiously.

    “Of course, you do know who is the most immediate and direct beneficiary of this reasoning?”

    “Of course I do….”

    “That’s Right! Kim DotCom and MegaUpload are the first beneficiaries! After all, Kim Dotcom’s argument has always been that his arrest, and the takedown of MegaUpload, were extra-judicial and extra-territorial because he hadn’t been properly served prior to the actions against him. This decision represents a weakening in the claim that the DOJ’s failure to serve MegaUpload in its foreign national domicile wasn’t a requirement for jurisdiction. It makes it infinitely easier; and, infinitely more obvious, that Kim WILL get past the DOJ, and into the implementation of the new Mega………. Get it?”

    “Yeah. I was just thinking exactly that! …….. But, I was also thinking that this decision is infinitely more positive for filesharers, than any adverse effects from Paypal’s efforts to shelter the Copyright monopolies; because, after all, Paypal alone does NOT have the economic or legal or political standing to impose ultimate systemic outcomes; whereas the American Appellete Courts are absolutely in the business of imposing final limits on arbitrary Power on behalf of the complete American Democracy.”

    “Hey! Hold a second! We’re doing this exactly as we agreed so many years ago. OK? You remember? We agreed. I’ll do the thinking. You do the writing. That’s how we do it. Right?”

    “OK. But I’ve always told you, there’s only one of us here.”

    “Good! A Million High Fives all around! Now hit the red button for that Other Guy. You know! The red button that says, Post as ThumbsUpThumbsDown.

    I

    • Anon

      Wow. This is awesome.

  • WorldDomination

    What that judge is calling for is a “Helms-Burton Act” for copyright infringments. I bet the US Congress will vote that sooner rather than later…

    • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

      Didn’t they try that with PIPA, SOPA, ACTA, CISPA, and TPP?

      You DO remember what the outcome was?

      Their problem isn’t merely that they failed; because, once you try and fail, the people never forget.

      • WorldDomination

        People DO forget (with a little/a lot of help from the media, granted). And oh yes, SIPA et al. have failed to pass in parliaments (for now), but that has never stopped people in power from getting their way. Proof of it is that you still get a 6 strikes scheme in the US.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “Proof of it is that you still get a 6 strikes scheme in the US.”

          A number of ISP’s have decided to “voluntarily” go along with the “six-strikes scheme”.

          Since that scheme is set to catch very few to no pirates, and on the contrary leaves the participating ISP’s in an extremely vulnerable position, my prediction is that it will turn out to be even less successful than the french HADOPI (which has far more draconian measures and actual judicial power directly involved from the get-go).

          The six-strike scheme is the blank shot left over when the rest of the cupboard has turned out to be bare. It does nothing. Worse as far as the copyright cartels are concerned, it serves only to seat copyright enforcement, like a fat, ugly and intrusive toad, right in the breakfast cereal bowl of millions of people.

          Now “Anon”, bobmail, and the other copyright maximalists think this is great news. Whereas every pirate knows every time copyright enforcement gets news time, the pirate movement swells.

        • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

          The only thing this six strike program is going to do is teach the masses how to use encryption, how to cover their tracks. Even casual users are going to jump onto vpns or i2p after their first warning. The only people making it to 5 strikes are going to be the innocent, which is going to be very embarrassing for the ISPs and lead to a lot of bad press as the media crows about the 89 year old women without computers that are being sued by the MAFIAA.

        • WorldDomination

          “Since that scheme is set to catch very few to no pirates”

          One pirate caught is one too many. And besides that’s not my point. My point was that if they cannot get their way in parliament, the copyright trolls will get what they want some other way, like PayPal blocking payments, court orders blocking sites, n-strikes schemes, etc. The means are different but the result is the same, if not worse.

          “every time copyright enforcement gets news time, the pirate movement swells.”

          If you live in a delusional world maybe, but in the real world more people sharing files online still hasn’t translated into more Pirate Party members nor votes (certainly not where I live).

  • oldgoat

    bobmail and their like are just shills for the corps. Or maybe he was a star in “Big Bob does Botswana”.

    • Anon

      Yes. The important thing to do is to reply with good, concise, factual retorts. Because not only do posters like bobmail work for the MAFIAA, but the shitposters that say “fuck you fagget” do as well.

  • Oldman

    What does this teach us? Boycott the U.S.

  • chris_p_bacon(R.O.L.L)

    i lost one helluva ratio at Empornium. some of the stuff on their site was available nowhere else. not even Amazon lol have re joined but it will never be the same, it’s like pornbay, who constantly delete accounts when you have not visited in a week, well i am exaggerating, but you get my drift

  • barney55

    Stop the press…This same judge is not at all friendly to file sharing in another case:
    Bennett awarded 4 mil (yes Four Million Dollars) to FraserSide against a domestic (US) pron tube site:

    2/20/2012:
    U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett in Cedar Rapids entered the judgment last week against Mark and Mina Faragalla of Beaumont, Calif., who operated PornVisit.com. He ordered them to pay the maximum damages of $150,000 per infringement to Norwood, Iowa-based FraserSide IP LLC, a subsidiary of Nevada-based adult entertainment company Private Media Group, and to stop stealing its copyrighted works.

    See story here
    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/story/2012-02-20/porn-piracy-4-million-dollar-judgment/53172662/1

    • Anon

      That’s because the Faragallas defaulted (didn’t show up or defend the action). The judge was required to accept the allegations of the complaint and affidavits submitted by Fraserside, since there was nothing submitted by the other side.

  • Chillinfart

    In a few words, no evidence and a bad use of justice from FraserSide.

    Double fail.

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.