Court Orders SportsBay To Pay Almost Half a Billion Dollars For Violating DMCA (torrentfreak.com) 38
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: In the summer of 2021, DISH Network and Sling filed a copyright lawsuit against four unlicensed sports streaming sites, among them the popular SportsBay.org. After the plaintiffs named two alleged operators of the sites, this week a court in Texas held the pair liable for almost 2.5 million violations of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions and almost half a billion dollars in damages. [...] The complaint alleged that the unknown defendants circumvented (and provided technologies and services that circumvented) security measures employed by Sling and thereby provided "DISH's television programming" to users of their websites. The plaintiffs requested a permanent injunction, control of the defendants' domains, and damages of up to $2,500 for each violation of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions.
According to DISH's first amended complaint filed in January 2022, information obtained from the third-party service providers enabled the company to identify two men responsible for operating the SportsBay sites. Juan Barcan, an individual residing in Buenos Aires, Argentina, used his PayPal account to make payments to Namecheap and GitHub. Juan Nahuel Pereyra, also of Buenos Aires, used his PayPal account to make payments to Namecheap. On January 20, 2022, DISH sent a request to the Argentine Central Authority to serve Barcan and Pereyra under the Hague Convention. On October 31, 2022, the Central Authority informed DISH that Pereyra was served in Buenos Aires on September 14, 2022. Barcan was not served so after obtaining permission from the court, DISH served Barcan via a Gmail address used to make payments to Namecheap for the Sportsbay.org, Live-nba.stream, and Freefeds.com domain names. When the defendants failed to appear, DISH sought default judgment. [...]
In his order (PDF) handed down yesterday, District Judge Charles Eskridge entered a default judgment against Juan Barcan and Juan Nahuel Pereyra for violations of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions. The defendants and anyone acting in concert with them are permanently enjoined from circumventing any technological protection measure that controls access to Sling or DISH programming, including through the use of websites or any similar internet streaming service. Then comes the award for damages. "Plaintiffs are awarded $493,850,000 in statutory damages against Defendants, jointly and severally, for Defendants' 2,469,250 violations of section 1201(a)(2) of the DMCA," the order reads.
According to DISH's first amended complaint filed in January 2022, information obtained from the third-party service providers enabled the company to identify two men responsible for operating the SportsBay sites. Juan Barcan, an individual residing in Buenos Aires, Argentina, used his PayPal account to make payments to Namecheap and GitHub. Juan Nahuel Pereyra, also of Buenos Aires, used his PayPal account to make payments to Namecheap. On January 20, 2022, DISH sent a request to the Argentine Central Authority to serve Barcan and Pereyra under the Hague Convention. On October 31, 2022, the Central Authority informed DISH that Pereyra was served in Buenos Aires on September 14, 2022. Barcan was not served so after obtaining permission from the court, DISH served Barcan via a Gmail address used to make payments to Namecheap for the Sportsbay.org, Live-nba.stream, and Freefeds.com domain names. When the defendants failed to appear, DISH sought default judgment. [...]
In his order (PDF) handed down yesterday, District Judge Charles Eskridge entered a default judgment against Juan Barcan and Juan Nahuel Pereyra for violations of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions. The defendants and anyone acting in concert with them are permanently enjoined from circumventing any technological protection measure that controls access to Sling or DISH programming, including through the use of websites or any similar internet streaming service. Then comes the award for damages. "Plaintiffs are awarded $493,850,000 in statutory damages against Defendants, jointly and severally, for Defendants' 2,469,250 violations of section 1201(a)(2) of the DMCA," the order reads.
Why not make it an even trillion? (Score:4, Insightful)
They will never receive a cent anyway. Absurd awards just bring shame on the court.
Re:Why not make it an even trillion? (Score:5, Insightful)
These guys are both in Buenos Aires.
I doubt they care what a US civil court ordered.
Good luck collecting or enforcing that ruling.
Re:Why not make it an even trillion? (Score:4, Interesting)
Many countries have reciprocal agreements allowing enforcement of foreign judgements in their territory.
Amusingly, the US is not one of these countries, and the State Departments comment on the matter is:
https://travel.state.gov/conte... [state.gov]
Which seems quite apt in this circumstance.
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes huge ruling against corporations are because a "reasonable" penalty won't have any impact on the company's behavior. They'll just write it off and continue doing whatever harm they were doing. But a huge number is a wake up call that their behavior is unacceptable to society.
Not every huge ruling is appropriate but some are.
Re: (Score:3)
And it makes no sense in any case, different countries have different laws.
Huge numbers of people in the US would be considered criminals under the legal system in conservative countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia. Should a Saudi court have the right to prosecute a US based pornography company for violating Saudi laws? Should the supreme court of North Korea be allowed to sentence American citizens to death for making fun of Kim Jong Un?
Quite a few countries have severe penalties for consumption/trade of can
Re:Why not make it an even trillion? (Score:4, Insightful)
Based on the law, it's not incorrect.
So the law is incorrect.
Quite frankly, a law that lets you arrive at these ridiculous sums over something equally ridiculous is insane. Get a better legal system.
Re: (Score:2)
"these ridiculous sums"
Is it really any more ridiculous than violating the law *2.5 million times*? How many things have you ever done 2.5 million times?
Re: (Score:2)
Leave my sex life out of this.
Violating the law 2.5 million times... how? If you speed down the road and 10 people saw it, do you pay the fine 10 times?
Re: (Score:2)
Then fight the law. That's fine. But don't bitch about it's application to a case where nobody mounted a defense.
Re: (Score:2)
They were never going to turn up in a US court, they are never going to pay, they are not going to be extradited
They committed no crime in Argentina, where they live, there is no extradition agreement, and the Argentinian courts consider the fines excessive and so will not chase for payment ... it's utterly pointless
Re: (Score:1)
The article shows the rationale and the math.
That's exactly the complaint. Not the math, but the entire rationale is wrong.
Based on the law, it's not incorrect.
Based on the law, all DMCA charges are incorrect. It's an unconstitutional law.
The government does not have, and is explicitly barred, from issuing unlimited length copyright terms. "For a limited time" is as explicit as it gets.
That is exactly what the DMCA does.
Make no mistake, this is NOT based in law, this is based entirely on the force the US government can project to get what they want.
There were other options available to them. They could have defended themselves, offered to settle for pennies on the dollar, or even thrown themselves on the mercy of the court after demonstrating through records that their profits were insubstantial in comparison.
One of the people involved weren't e
Re: (Score:2)
The government does not have, and is explicitly barred, from issuing unlimited length copyright terms. "For a limited time" is as explicit as it gets.
That is exactly what the DMCA does.
This is simply untrue. While I, too, believe (though the Supreme Court disagrees) that regularly extending copyrights makes a mockery out of the "limited time" provision in the Constitution, the DMCA has nothing to say about copyright terms.
Re:Why not make it an even trillion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Show up in court in the US as a foreigner?
Why the hell would you be that stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
They will never receive a cent anyway. Absurd awards just bring shame on the court.
Clearly there should be a bulk discount on torts.
While we are at it, how about a 2-for-1 sale on criming?
Expose Me To Your Signal (Score:2)
And I will use it how I wish.
Is Sports copyrighting constitutional? (Score:5, Informative)
fun thought for the day. The constitution states:
'To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries'
At sports programs - or indeed pornography - useful arts? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
At least the porn helps procreation and lowers male aggressiveness. The same cannot be said of sports. Which often does the opposite. (Especially American Football which actively encourages bodily injury and increases aggressiveness. Both in the players and the vie
Hey sportsball teams: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Can you not sign up for Bally+ and a VPN service to stream Twins games? For that matter, you could get MLB.tv and VPN service and stream your game. You just need an IP that isn't in the Twins blackout region.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason is basically the greed of Sinclair Broadcasting.
MLB grants each team a broadcast market, and the team then has exclusive rights to their broadcasts in that market. Each team then signs a (typically long term) contract with a broadcaster, granting the broadcaster exclusive viewing rights in the market. However, almost none of those existing contracts included direct streaming rights. So, MLB.tv can't stream the game in the market (because the team owns viewing rights and signed them to a broadcast
Re: (Score:2)
the stupid reason is Sinclair greed
I, for the most part, 100% agree. Sinclair is the bastard in this situation, but they teams themselves (and MLB) aren't completely without blame. I understand that these contracts are often 10+ years, and this particular one was signed before streaming was a big thing. That being said, contracts are re-negotiated every day. If the teams/MLB honestly wanted their fans to be able to stream games they would have figured it out by now, but they are content to just wait for Bally/Diamond/Sinclair* to finish g
Default judgement... (Score:1)
The default judgement meant that the defendants were served and didn't even bother with the trial, so the plantiff was able to make an example out of them.
At least in NYC, that is changing. If someone who owes a debt misses a court case because they decided not to bother when a creditor sued them, the judge can get a bench warrant for their arrest, so they don't just owe that debt, but also a contempt charge and some jail time.