Court Fines YouTuber For Posting IPTV Piracy Tutorials (torrentfreak.com) 37
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: Operated by Bruno Gustavo Januario, the 'Jorge Dejorge' channel is packed with technology-focused videos offering reviews, unboxing videos, tips and tutorials, most of which are entirely non-problematic. However, a decision to publish advice on how to obtain TV channels via pirate IPTV services attracted the attention of ABTA, the powerful Brazilian Pay TV Association. ABTA, which represents the main cable TV and channel operators in the country, including Globosat, Sky, NBC Universal, Fox and Discovery, filed a lawsuit against Bruno Gustavo claiming that his instructional videos infringed their rights.
In his response, the channel owner described himself as an "ordinary person" with a YouTube channel and denied that he'd named any of the TV operators in his videos. In any event, he argued, they were informative in nature and did not aim to instruct people on how to break the law. Nevertheless, in April 2018 a judge at a Sao Paulo court handed down an order that required hosting and search companies, including Google, to remove the videos in question and Bruno Gustavo was told to stop publishing such content in the future. Failure to comply would result in a fine equivalent to $1,740 for each offense. However, according to a Globo report, the judge held back from compensating the TV companies as he believed their trademarks had not been infringed. This resulted in an appeal from both sides to the Court of Justice of Sao Paulo which was heard in April 2020. In its ruling, the Court found that the operator of the Jorge Dejorge channel must pay compensation to ABTA for breaching its members' rights with his "fraudulent" videos. "The Court found that the videos improperly reproduced the channels' trademarks, infringed their copyrights, and amounted to unfair competition against ABTA's members," reports TorrentFreak. The Court says 10% of any revenues earned by the channel since the illegal content was first published in February 2017, must be handed over to the TV companies.
"The Jorge Dejorge operator must also pay $8,721 in compensation to the broadcasters adjusted for interest at the rate of 1% per month from the publishing of the first content in February 2017," the report adds. "In addition, the defendant was ordered not to publish any more content that infringes on the rights of the pay-TV stations and was told to pay the costs of the lawsuit plus attorney fees." Gustavo's legal team is planning an appeal.
In his response, the channel owner described himself as an "ordinary person" with a YouTube channel and denied that he'd named any of the TV operators in his videos. In any event, he argued, they were informative in nature and did not aim to instruct people on how to break the law. Nevertheless, in April 2018 a judge at a Sao Paulo court handed down an order that required hosting and search companies, including Google, to remove the videos in question and Bruno Gustavo was told to stop publishing such content in the future. Failure to comply would result in a fine equivalent to $1,740 for each offense. However, according to a Globo report, the judge held back from compensating the TV companies as he believed their trademarks had not been infringed. This resulted in an appeal from both sides to the Court of Justice of Sao Paulo which was heard in April 2020. In its ruling, the Court found that the operator of the Jorge Dejorge channel must pay compensation to ABTA for breaching its members' rights with his "fraudulent" videos. "The Court found that the videos improperly reproduced the channels' trademarks, infringed their copyrights, and amounted to unfair competition against ABTA's members," reports TorrentFreak. The Court says 10% of any revenues earned by the channel since the illegal content was first published in February 2017, must be handed over to the TV companies.
"The Jorge Dejorge operator must also pay $8,721 in compensation to the broadcasters adjusted for interest at the rate of 1% per month from the publishing of the first content in February 2017," the report adds. "In addition, the defendant was ordered not to publish any more content that infringes on the rights of the pay-TV stations and was told to pay the costs of the lawsuit plus attorney fees." Gustavo's legal team is planning an appeal.
This can be trouble. (Score:2)
There is often a thin line between Piracy/Hacking - Abusing/Taking full advantage of the system - Creative Problem solving/making a competing product.
So we have setting up a Pirate TV Box. Which could lead to a report of unblocked channels (that cable companies often do to entice people to upgrade), then cases where people are shown how to make a DVR that skips commercials.
Re: (Score:2)
Also note that the payment is to the TV companies is "10% of any revenues earned by the channel since the illegal content was first published in February 2017" (plus interest), so the guy is still making money from this, just making 10% less money.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope: later in the article it says:
The Jorge Dejorge operator must also pay R$50,000 (US$8,721) in compensation to the broadcasters adjusted for interest at the rate of 1% per month from the publishing of the first content in February 2017... and was told to pay the costs of the lawsuit plus attorney fees.
One rule for IP one rule for everything else (Score:3)
So, does that mean that Lock Picking Lawyer is going to jail?
Re: (Score:2)
Why? He's not showing people how to copy commercial products.
Re: (Score:1)
I copy loaves and fish and related biology.
The authorities can't even see that, much less know what to charge it as.
Re: (Score:3)
LPL is in Maryland - why would you think a Brazilian judge could send him to jail?
Re: One rule for IP one rule for everything else (Score:1)
He obviously means an American judge, you full retard!
A word of caution (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: A word of caution (Score:1)
Sorry, only humans (homo sapiens) get access.
Homo psychopathis and homo retardis does not.
Yet Flat Earthers post all day long (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Yet Flat Earthers post all day long (Score:2)
You might benefit from meeting more people and then checking that premise. They can't all do that. Still room to debate what level of harm is in scope for such protections. But I didn't think there is a specific problem with flat earth theories getting represented - certainly seem to be plenty easily findable, not that I am a fan of them either.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody's opinion has an effect on the shape of the earth, of course. Our opinion does have an effect on air travel times though. The Round Earth Theory means that planes get between distant locations in less time; following the Flat Earth Theory means travel takes more time and resources; and the Disc World Theory means your planes need to dodge witches (because Granny Weatherwax ain't gonna dodge you, and you do NOT want to piss her off).
Re: Yet Flat Earthers post all day long (Score:3)
Sorry, but did you just explain that flat earth theories are worse for global warming?
Well played.
Re: (Score:2)
Flat Earth is a Nazi front organization. They get a free pass for acting totally batty, but it's really just more fucking nazis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Yet Flat Earthers post all day long (Score:2)
Streisand effect (Score:2)
Note this only applies to the releasing of the information. If he's encouraging it, then that's a different issue. The problem arises because any 'harm' is difficult to quantify and largely subjective. The company will always overstate things but the perpetrator will always discount them.
Re: (Score:2)
Chile and Brazil and I think Argentina had issues with Communist at one point. The solution was, they ( the state ) would come to the houses at night, take people out to the woods kill them and they would vanish. The rule of law we have in the USA is really good about not letting this sort of thing happen in to often. Step out of line with the wrong group in Brazil, and in a few minutes you'll end up with a bullet in your head. happens
Given we have race issues in the USA, but we are getting better at being
nah (Score:1)
>>reproduced the channels' trademarks
not same-trade marketed
>>infringed their copyrights
republished content where
>>amounted to unfair competition
blurry soft subjective definition I can't outright deny, but if "the powerful Brazilian Pay TV Association" has same-market competition with a youtube channel they must suck pretty bad
Re: Torrentfreak (Score:1)
You comment is fake news. You don't even exist.
So this has been deleted from youtu.be? (Score:2)
I do hope all his content has been saved to the Internet Archive where there isn't any monetization that I am aware of.
This will get overturned. (Score:2)
If the ruling is indeed 10% of all income from the channel this ruling will get overturned. I don't think Brazil has any legal basis for compensation based on irrelevant earnings. You can't go after someone and say well the brick layer pirated that video so he now owes you 10% of his brick laying earnings. The fine would have to be linked to the specific video and not the irrelevant "channel earnings".
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about a country full of nazi's (not neo's, but the real ones or descendants of), smugglers and a huge divide between the have and the have-nots. Their president is a corrupt nuthead, the police is replaced by the maffia, schools and universities exists only to those who can afford them and i don't know about the justice system but going by this article it's so-so at best.
What makes you so confident this will get overturned? Not that i hope so too, they are giving the dude a beating for spread
Re: (Score:3)
Intriguing (Score:2)
Good to know. A lot of people are going to be pouring over past Brazilian TV broadcasts, websites, magazines, etc. with a fine-toothed comb now.
Re: (Score:2)
maybe,
but I am not sure
https://www.stopfakes.gov/arti... [stopfakes.gov]
should help you with a solution.
Thats a business model (Score:1)