Taking Legal Actions to Sue: DMCA

[kupido]

There are many websites that don't abide by DMCA takedown requests that are sent to them. These websites may have a page that lie stating they abide by DMCA and will take down anything upon requests. Most times the sites are based in other foreign countries where DMCA does not exists. My question is, has anyone ever tried to take legal action and sue any of these sites, and actually been successful in shutting the site down from the internet?

Considering they steal thousands of cam recordings from thousands of camgirls, I think it would be a pretty big case with enough supporting evidence from each cam model to get these sites taken down. How complicated and hard would it be to shut down a DMCA violating site from the web? I dont care about dealing with complicated filings and the little fine details in filing out forms and etc. I just want to know how to do it and not have to spend millions of money. Surely it doesnt take a fortune to shut down one copyright infringing site that everyone already wants out.

My question is, if this is possible, how would I go about doing it successfully? If this has already been done I would like some tips/legal filing advice, etc if anyone has ever been successful in doing this. I know there are many cam models here who would help and support shutting these sites down if I start something like this. I for one am sick and tired of seeing my stolen content online!!!

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Almost all of the website that don't respond to DCMA are located outside the US. For instance, Upstore.net servers are primarily hosted in Russia and the company is headquarters out of Cyprus which is a favorite location for Russian money laundering operation. So in order to be successful, you would need to hire a Cyprus attorney. Then you would need to convince a court in Cyprus to enforce a USA law DCMA This is possible because Cyprus is a member of the EU, but unlikely due to the strong Russian influence. But if somehow you did succeed you would then have to convince Russian authorities to enforce the Cyrus court order to remove the files.

I think your money would be better spent hiring hackers to remove all the files, or bribes to get them tossed in jail. But if you don't have millions of dollars your best off just ignoring, at least that's what most of the experience camgirls seem to do.

 

[SMuser69]

Actually suing regarding a DMCA is incredibly difficult. First you have to probably win a 'fair use' argument then you had to prove damages. When it comes to HOW they block record your entire streams and edit down to the 'good parts' they will have a pretty strong fair use trans-formative argument (4-5min recording from a 2-5 hours RAW recording). Next you would have to prove damages from the video itself which might also be difficult unless you sell video of the 'good part' yourself that you're losing profit from. DMCA are PER item or list of items you can't just say 'don't record anything from <camgirl>', you're saying, 'I'm am <camgirl> and these video(s) infringe on my copyrights'. They can keep producing MORE stolen videos while you're trying to still take the older ones down.

But let's say you win DMCA takedown. It would be for that ONE item or list of items. They could just edit the content and re-upload it as 'new' and you're back to square one. The only cases of DMCA actually shutting a site down involved class-action cases where a group of people with stolen content could prove long term behavior and the court shut it all down. A group of models could better prove the site is ignoring DMCA but just one might not be able to.

Not saying DMCA is useless but that you better have a real smoking gun if you're to bring it too a courtroom as an individual. Right now there's really no cam industry legal group(at least that I'm aware of) that could rally a class action again these sites to show they are ignoring DMCA notices.

 

[THE MOLLIE MARIE]

When it comes to HOW they block record your entire streams and edit down to the 'good parts' they will have a pretty strong fair use trans-formative argument (4-5min recording from a 2-5 hours RAW recording).

I highly doubt that it would be seen as transformative fair use just because they trim the footage down. Without adding any new material of their own, there is nothing transformative about it.

The rest of what you've said makes reasonable sense. It's just your understanding of what is transformative that I think is incorrect.

• Has the material taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning?
• Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights, and understandings?

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I highly doubt that it would be seen as transformative fair use just because they trim the footage down. Without adding any new material of their own, there is nothing transformative about it.

The rest of what you've said makes reasonable sense. It's just your understanding of what is transformative that I think is incorrect.

I agree with you. But realistically, no pirate site is going to bother with editing something just to get around DCMA requests. I suspect that they won't even bother to mount a defense and would just take the material down. The real problem isn't winning in court, its finding a court where winning will have any real consequences. The motion pictures and music have spent hundreds of millions of dollars going
after pirated material, and even thrown a few pirates in jail. They have been modestly successful in getting movies and songs off file sharing sites, but pretty much failed to stop torrents.

Since the largest porn company, MindGeek depends heavily on pirated porn to make money e.g. PornHub, there is no way a camsite legal team is happening anytime soon.

 

[SMuser69]

I highly doubt that it would be seen as transformative fair use when they trim the footage down without adding any new material of their own.

The rest of what you've said makes reasonable sense. It's just your understanding of what is transformative that I think is incorrect.

Transformative is handled very broadly in the courts. And because the RAW captures can be so massive you'd have a hard argument that context of the entirety of the video is maintained by a clip that represents less that 2-10% of the whole. Not saying it's impossible since a cam model hasn't taken these sites to court as an individual and at least not settled out of court first.

Because the footage was collected in public domain, copyright only protects the holder in terms of it's first airing (Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985)). Basically it means that if the copyright holder first releases the footage for free then anyone after can also release the same footage equal if they pay the original royalty value (free) to the copyright holder. In essence the model would only have a case if they put the same complete session up on a site for a monetary value would they have a case.

So there's a few avenues to build a defense around due to the nature and methods these site collect the footage.

Just to note we're ONLY talking about cam session rips from public cam sites not pre-monitized content like premade clips or footage behind venues(pvts, tradeshows, anytime the person had to pay money for original access to the footage).

 

[THE MOLLIE MARIE]

I agree with you. But realistically, no pirate site is going to bother with editing something just to get around DCMA requests. I suspect that they won't even bother to mount a defense and would just take the material down. The real problem isn't winning in court, its finding a court where winning will have any real consequences. The motion pictures and music have spent hundreds of millions of dollars going
after pirated material, and even thrown a few pirates in jail. They have been modestly successful in getting movies and songs off file sharing sites, but pretty much failed to stop torrents.

Yeah... That's why I said I agreed with the rest of his post.

 

[DJ_Pioneer]

Because the footage was collected in public domain, copyright only protects the holder in terms of it's first airing (Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985)). Basically it means that if the copyright holder first releases the footage for free then anyone after can also release the same footage equal if they pay the original royalty value (free) to the copyright holder. In essence the model would only have a case if they put the same complete session up on a site for a monetary value would they have a case.

Just because the footage was first broadcast on a site where it can be viewed for free it does not mean it enters the public domain. A model considering to sue over copyright should consult a copyright attorney so they can get accurate advice.

 

[Lelo1]

I think your money would be better spent hiring hackers to remove all the files, or bribes to get them tossed in jail.

Committing a crime, that just sounds like really bad advise.

Surely it doesnt take a fortune to shut down one copyright infringing site that everyone already wants out.

The movie industry spends 12.5 billion a year trying to fight piracy, and you can still watch any movie you want online for free.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Committing a crime, that just sounds like really bad advise.

I was kidding.duh. Also depending on where the OP lives neither hacking nor bribing a foreign official is necessarily a crime.

 

[dark_mermaid]

Upstore is not hosted in Russia, it is hosted in the Netherlands. Their host is called Serverius.

 

[Lelo1]

Also depending on where the OP lives neither hacking nor bribing a foreign official is necessarily a crime.

It would also matter if it's a crime where the servers reside. Some of these websites are scattered all over the world.

Upstore is not hosted in Russia, it is hosted in the Netherlands. Their host is called Serverius.

Do they actually respond to DCMA?

 

[cammingcouple]

Most times the sites are based in other foreign countries where DMCA does not exists. My question is, has anyone ever tried to take legal action and sue any of these sites, and actually been successful in shutting the site down from the internet?

How would you take legal action if what they're doing isn't illegal? Like you said, they are based in foreign countries where DMCA doesn't exist. A person living in Russia (or wherever they are) has no obligation to abide by US law, just like you have no obligation to abide by the laws in a country where camming is illegal. Granted, it's a bit more complicated than that when the countries have agreements between them regarding those laws, but that's probably not the case with many of these sites.

 

[dark_mermaid]

There is a notice and takedown process in most countries like dmca, just has a different name then. So a company saying "dmca does not apply for us" is correct but also just playing dumb at the same time, because there is an almost 100% certainty such a process exists in that country too just under another name.

 

[dark_mermaid]

There are many websites that don't abide by DMCA takedown requests that are sent to them. These websites may have a page that lie stating they abide by DMCA and will take down anything upon requests. Most times the sites are based in other foreign countries where DMCA does not exists. My question is, has anyone ever tried to take legal action and sue any of these sites, and actually been successful in shutting the site down from the internet?

In the cam business I don't think this has ever been done, at least not that I know of. Let's also not forget, that most cam related piracy sites are actually sponsored by...yes, camsites. It's a twisted business.

 

[cammingcouple]

It would also matter if it's a crime where the servers reside. Some of these websites are scattered all over the world.



Do they actually respond to DCMA?

Not to mention they're most likely using fake info anyway. Even if you could sue, good luck tracking them down. Best case is you get a server shut down.

 

[Lelo1]

Not to mention they're most likely using fake info anyway. Even if you could sue, good luck tracking them down. Best case is you get a server shut down.

Honestly taking down a server is probable not a huge deal, There are lots of service providers.

 

[dark_mermaid]

There are not so many server hosts that ignore copyright claims and have acceptable speed. Also it's a hassle to switch. So it's good.

 

[cammingcouple]

Honestly taking down a server is probable not a huge deal, There are lots of service providers.

Right. Anyone running those sites (or any site of any decent scale for that matter) is going to have multiple servers spread across multiple data centers. Requests will be load balanced between them (in the case of many of these sites, using Cloudflare). Taking a server down would go pretty much unnoticed and a minor inconvenience at best. Upstore probably gets enough DMCA reqeusts that this is a daily occurrence for them, or they have hosts that don't give a shit.

 

[oxyron]

Almost all of the website that don't respond to DCMA are located outside the US. For instance, Upstore.net servers are primarily hosted in Russia and the company is headquarters out of Cyprus which is a favorite location for Russian money laundering operation. So in order to be successful, you would need to hire a Cyprus attorney. Then you would need to convince a court in Cyprus to enforce a USA law DCMA This is possible because Cyprus is a member of the EU, but unlikely due to the strong Russian influence. But if somehow you did succeed you would then have to convince Russian authorities to enforce the Cyrus court order to remove the files.

That's a lot of unnecessary work. Who cares where the Upstore company is registered or what nationality the owner are.
You should rather go to dutch court to take their fileservers down, which is hosted with Leaseweb (in Holland).

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

That's a lot of unnecessary work. Who cares where the Upstore company is registered or what nationality the owner are.
You should rather go to dutch court to take their fileservers down, which is hosted with Leaseweb (in Holland).

Their website says differently. (I don't want to provide a link to pirate host.)

Maxiwebconsulting Ltd. (project Upstore) was established in 2012...

..

I've read somewhere that their servers were primarily located in Russia.

I couldn't find any reference to Netherlands host. Do you have a link?

 

[oxyron]

Their website says differently. (I don't want to provide a link to pirate host.)

[removed hotlink]

I've read somewhere that their servers were primarily located in Russia.

I couldn't find any reference to Netherlands host. Do you have a link?

Their frontend (the webpage itself) are probably hosted on a small server with a non-compliant datacenter. This is pretty common. Most of their fileservers however are hosted in Holland, where both HDD and bandwith are cheap as f.

Their fileservers are d[4-7].XXpstore.net.
When you download a link from them, the url will be something like:
https://d7.XXpstore.net/l/your-ip-address-20-fGHSqAo/coolvideo.mp4. This is a temporary link and is unique for you, so it doesn't do much good to send it to LeaseWeb for removal. They won't even be able to access the link.

d7.XXpstore.net [94.75.229.94] [Responsible organisation: LeaseWeb Netherlands B.V.]
d6.XXpstore.net [85.17.172.206] [Responsible organisation: LeaseWeb Netherlands B.V.]
d5.XXpstore.net [85.17.172.205] [Responsible organisation: LeaseWeb Netherlands B.V.]
d4.XXpstore.net [94.242.253.20] [Responsible organisation: root SA]

You need a bit more info than just this ofc, but if you gather enough evidence and do the necessary homework, you could go to dutch court asking for the server to be brought offline. You can also contact Leaseweb. They are one of the good guys and are very dmca friendly, but u probably need a bit more data than just some temporary links..