\u201c[T]he basis for agreeing to the requested preliminary diligence, can only be carried out against the \u2018cardsharers\u2019 who re-spread the signal and profit from it, and not against mere end users,\u201d the statement explained.<\/p>\n
And that was that, at least until letters from LaLiga\u2019s lawyers started being delivered to homes in Spain last month.<\/p>\n
Old School \u201cPay Up Or Else\u201d Approach<\/h2>\n
The existence of the letters was first reported by lawyer\u00a0David Maeztu<\/a>\u00a0who posted a section of one on X together with some explanatory notes.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cA conciliation claim [offer to settle] is filed against a user, who has been identified by his IP [address] because \u2018it has been possible to confirm that from his Internet account [.] connections have been made to the pirate platform [.] from which access was provided\u2019,\u201d\u00a0Maeztu explains<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cThat is to say, it is a mere user connecting to a service. So yes, they intend to go against end users at least in a prior conciliation claim, which is not the same as a claim as such.\u201d<\/p>\n In the letter above, LaLiga\u2019s lawyer alleges that \u201cat least on Day 32 of LALIGA EA SPORTS and Day 36 of LALIGA HYPERMOTION that took place between the 19th and April 22, 2024,\u201d through the letter recipient\u2019s internet connection, \u201cillicit access to the audiovisual contents of LaLiga was obtained, without the consent of my client.\u201d<\/p>\n The letter continues by stating that if the alleged infringer \u201cimmediately ceases the indicated behavior and, in any case, undertakes to restrict access through its network to those IP addresses, domains and web pages that allow illegal access to the referred contents,\u201d and also \u201cagrees to pay LaLiga 450.16 euros as compensation for the damages caused by his conduct,\u201d the matter can be resolved.<\/p>\n In some respects, this sounds not dissimilar to an old school pay-up-or-else scheme, but as we suspected when reporting on this back in March, this goes way beyond anything seen before in a piracy case.<\/p>\n Copyright infringement claims refer to allegedly infringing acts that have already happened; as such, claims for damages or compensation for infringements that haven\u2019t happened yet face obvious challenges. It\u2019s possible, based on a pattern of historical behavior, to obtain an injunction to restrain future infringement, but that\u2019s usually as far as the law goes in these types of cases.<\/p>\n Based on information available at the time, our theory was that LaLiga had\u00a0zero information<\/a>\u00a0that would allow it to identify any of the supposed infringers at Telef\u00f3nica, Vodafone, Orange, M\u00e1sM\u00f3vil and Digi, the ISPs listed in the court order. Without an IP address, LaLiga wouldn\u2019t be able to identify an alleged infringers\u2019 ISP, let alone the actual infringer.<\/p>\n When rightsholders observe an infringement taking place online, they typically link it to an IP address. They then ask the relevant ISP to provide the identity of the subscriber who was using that IP address at the time of the observed infringement. In March, everything pointed to LaLiga having zero evidence against any users of the ISPs in question; we assumed that the ISPs would be asked to trawl their databases looking for evidence, which in itself would\u2019ve been extraordinary.<\/p>\n However, if we take a look at the letter published by David Maeztu, we see that the act[s] for which LaLiga is demanding 450 euros, supposedly took place in April \u2013 two months after the court order was obtained. That not only adds credibility to the theory that LaLiga had no evidence of infringement when it obtained the court order, it also suggests that the alleged offenses referenced in the settlement letters hadn\u2019t even happened yet.<\/p>\n \u201cThis makes no sense, and it would be good if the operators [ISPs] explained how this is possible,\u201d Maeztu notes.<\/p>\n As Maeztu points out, this situation makes absolutely no sense, but when the major ISPs in Spain profit from broadcasting football, it seems at least possible that extraordinary requests may be received more sympathetically.<\/p>\n Based on information currently available, it seems reasonable to assume that LaLiga has supplied the ISPs with card-sharing server IP addresses, plus additional information such as ports, and the ISPs are now logging (or retrieving from their logs) the IP addresses that access those servers.<\/p>\n After matching those IP addresses to subscriber accounts, the personal details of those subscribers are handed over to LaLiga by their ISPs, quite possibly becoming the only evidence supporting the claims in the cash settlement letters themselves.<\/p>\n LaLiga president Javier Tebas Medrano previously stated that IP addresses collected by LaLiga \u201cthat transmit illegal content\u201d would be sent to Spanish ISPs. The court order states that the\u00a0IP address assigned to the user<\/em>\u00a0when they accessed the server \u201cthat enabled the audiovisual content to be shared unlawfully\u201d would be handed over to LaLiga.<\/p>\n That appears to underline the importance of the ISPs in this process, while also running counter to the assurances of the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia that users would not be targeted.<\/p>\n After appearing to cross the threshold of ISPs providing evidence of infringement from inside their own networks, could this have implications beyond identifying people who obtain football matches for free?<\/p>\n For example, would the prospect of identifying the anonymous operator of a whistleblowing website, accused of posting content that undermines an individual\u2019s fundamental right to honor under Spanish law, find new opportunity beyond the compliance of the website\u2019s host?<\/p>\n Of course, in this hypothetical scenario, the fundamental right to honor would have to battle against the right to freedom of expression. However, should the alleged victim have deep enough pockets, it might be of some comfort to know that proactive monitoring to obtain evidence, from inside an ISP\u2019s network, might not be the unthinkable prospect it once was.<\/p>\n But as Maeztu notes, it would be good if the operators took the opportunity to explain how all of this works. It would be interesting to hear how this arrangement doesn\u2019t leave all internet users in Spain worse off than before, and why it was worth it for the sake of a few 450 euro \u2018fines\u2019.<\/p>\n Source: \u00a0![\"laliga-settlement](\"https:\/\/torrentfreak.com\/images\/laliga-settlement-demand.png\")
<\/a><\/center> <\/p>\nSpanish ISPs Appear to Be The Vital Component<\/h2>\n
ISPs\u2019 Loyalties Seem to Lie With LaLiga<\/h2>\n
Implications Beyond a Few Card-Sharers?<\/h2>\n
![\"TorrentFreak\"](\"http:\/\/worldjusticenews.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/torrentfreak.png\")
<\/a> TorrentFreak.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"