jebbypal

Posted by Andy Maxwell

https://torrentfreak.com/registrar-snubs-dmca-subpoena-potential-pandoras-box-shut-for-now-250706/

https://torrentfreak.com/?p=269324

Obtaining a DMCA subpoena to identify an alleged infringer is relatively easy, fairly cheap, and doesn’t require a judge to get involved.

A case in California has already stomped all over that general theory, but how far it will be allowed to progress and where any effects will be felt, currently hang in the balance.

Subpoena Application Considered Sufficient

In an application dated June 2, 2025, the pro se applicant systematically ticks the required boxes. The aim was to obtain a DMCA subpoena under 17 U.S. Code § 512(h) to compel domain registrar Dynadot Inc. to hand over information sufficient to identify one or more alleged infringers.

To meet the requirement at 2(A), the applicant provided a DMCA takedown notice sent to an email address at the domain MyPornvid.fun. The takedown notice references four original copyright works on YouTube, and corresponding URLs on MyPornvid.fun where the applicant alleges his videos could be viewed without authorization.

This wasn’t the full scale of the alleged infringement; the notice mentions that since “numerous” other videos from the applicant’s YouTube channel were also present on the site without permission, all should be removed for breach of copyright.

Information to Be Disclosed According to the Subpoena

The disclosure requests concern a single period that starts three years ago and ends at the date of the current subpoena. They relate to potential identifying information connected to Dynadot accounts (only one account is identified) used in connection with the domain mypornvid.fun, specifically:

The application concludes with the usual DMCA declarations and with that, the California court granted the subpoena. Deadline for production: June 30, 2025.

Dynadot Partially Complies

In a filing dated June 30, 2025, the applicant informs the court that Dynadot provided registration data for the person who held the domain during the period when the alleged infringement occurred (June through December 2023).

Those details include a full name, an email address, a phone number, and a physical address in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Apparently in response to the specific request to supply “last known” address and “last known” telephone number, Dynadot handed over the details of an entity/company called Name Management Group, which appears to be the current owner of the domain.

According to public records NMG has connections to around 78,000 domains. In a recently concluded dispute with Charter Communications (pdf), the entity was represented by an agent in India and described as a ‘domain investor’.

Dynadot Declines to Disclose IP Address Logs

Whether the obtained information will prove useful is unknown, but Dynadot’s reported refusal to fully comply with disclosure of IP address logs is an issue, the applicant writes.

Dynadot is reportedly claiming protection under the “transitory communications safe harbor under the DMCA” and has stated that they “will not provide any other user data absent an applicable court order.”

The applicant does note, however, that Dynadot “will not object to this order so long as no amounts are sought against Dynadot.”

Other than that, the registrar is said to have declined to engage in any “meaningful discussion.”

Domain Registrars “Are Not Transmission ISPs”

Citing various cases including Visual Supply Company v. Khimji, Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Verizon Internet Servs., Inc., and Charter Commc’ns, Inc., Subpoena Enf’t Matter, the applicant arrives at the following conclusions:

“This Court’s explicit finding that those precedents are not applicable when dealing with domain name registrars provides direct support for rejecting Dynadot’s identical safe harbor claim. Multiple federal courts across different circuits have consistently issued and enforced § 512(h) subpoenas against domain name registrars without analyzing claimed transmission safe harbor defenses.”

Court in Illinois Granted DMCA Subpoenas Against ISPs

To emphasize his position that “domain name registrars occupy a different legal position than pure transmission ISPs,” the applicant cites a 2019 case in the Northern District of Illinois.

CME Grp. Inc. v. Nagovskiy was a trademark and copyright action in which the plaintiff reportedly requested a DMCA subpoena pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(h). In response, the Court granted one, “compelling Defendants GoDaddy, OVH, and Webzilla to expeditiously disclose..[.]…information sufficient to identify Defendants.”

“If domain name registrars such as GoDaddy ‘enjoy[..] the transitory communications safe harbor under the DMCA,’ the court could not and would not have acceded to such a prayer for relief,” the applicant states.

“A Matter of Public Interest”

With those details established, the applicant asks the Court to enter “as a matter of public interest” the following order :

1. Declare that domain name registrars qualify as providers of “Information Location Tools” under 17 U.S.C. § 512(d) and are therefore subject to identification subpoenas under 17 U.S.C. § 512(h) regardless of any claimed safe harbor protections under other DMCA provisions; and

2. Based upon that determination, grant this unopposed motion and order Dynadot to provide complete compliance with the DMCA subpoena.

“[C]larification would benefit not only the instant matter, but all DMCA subpoenas issued to domain name registrars,” he adds.

Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim’s subsequent order notes the motion to compel but reminds the applicant that Dynadot has yet to file a ‘Consent or Declination’ to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Until then, important matters will presumably have to wait; not so in many other proceedings active elsewhere, however.

DMCA Subpoena Everyone

The applicant in the above matter, Nima Gharavi, is the person behind the Midwest Wrestle channel on YouTube. With over 2,200 videos documenting youth wrestling matches and related content, reportedly filmed by Gharavi himself (hence the copyright claims), MidWest Wrestle has amassed an impressive 120 million views from a base of 171K subscribers.

Since at least 2024, Gharavi’s name- sometimes as an individual, sometimes together with Right Call Officials, Inc. – has appeared on a series of DMCA subpoena applications targeting videos allegedly present on the world’s largest social media platforms. Those cases include the following, all of which have a copyright focus:

Gharavi v. Tumblr, Inc (1:24-cv-12718)
Gharavi v. X CORP. (3:25-mc-80004)
In re DMCA Subpoena to Reddit, Inc. (4:25-mc-80002)
In re DMCA Section 512(h) Subpoena to Google LLC. (4:25-mc-80164)
Gharavi v. Meta Platforms (3:25-mc-80003)
Gharavi v. Tumblr Inc (2:25-mc-00029)
Gharavi v. X Corp. (1:25-mc-00150)

One of the lawsuits is notable for its focus on the videos and related commentary made by third parties, to which Gharavi responded with a lawsuit for libel and slander.

In Gharavi v. Flosports, Inc. (1:24-cv-01969), the defendants were sued for a series of allegations, all of which concern the nature of the youth wrestling videos posted online.

Some of those videos received millions of views, in part due to a ‘different’ audience watching on platforms other than directly on YouTube.com. A judge alludes to the nature of that audience in the introduction of his recent memorandum opinion and order (pdf).

Our coverage on TF focuses purely on copyright; in that respect, the above case mostly lies outside our niche. However, in the context of the DMCA subpoena, Dynadot’s partial refusal to comply, and the request for the court to examine matters concerning service provider safe harbor, the case presents small pieces of information that may punch above their weight.

Technical Matters, Matter

Due to the ongoing matter of the allegedly libelous speech, our focus is on a technical detail that not only transcends that dispute, but may offer guidance in the parallel DMCA subpoena matter.

If content of any kind was posted to YouTube and managed to attract a large audience beyond those who view via the YouTube.com front end, that would usually be achieved by embedding YouTube videos in third party sites. In the lawsuit against Flosports, screenshots of search engine results appear to show the videos embedded in third party sites.

The examples in the DMCA takedown notice clearly show that the URLs for the allegedly unauthorized ‘copies’ of the videos, contain the same YouTube video references contained in the originals.

That raises an important question: were these unauthorized ‘copies’ of videos ripped from YouTube, hosted elsewhere, and viewed in a player other than YouTube’s in clear breach of copyright; or were these the original videos embedded in the third-party site, streamed directly from YouTube?

If the latter is true, that raises the prospect of an admittedly objectionable audience watching fully-licensed content. If proven, the implications for the DMCA subpoena matter could be devastating.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

https://torrentfreak.com/registrar-snubs-dmca-subpoena-potential-pandoras-box-shut-for-now-250706/

https://torrentfreak.com/?p=269324