DrTuber, ShooshTime Hit With Infringement Claims
MIAMI — AMA Multimedia LLC — the operator of more than 20 porn membership sites, including Passion-HD.com, Tiny4K.com and PornPros.com — last month filed two copyright infringement lawsuits targeting a number of websites that allegedly poached and streamed its content.
AMA Multimedia’s two new lawsuits join the litigation tally for the studio that produces its own content. The company filed similar separate copyright suits against the operators of ServiPorno.com and EPorner.com earlier this year.
In a new suit filed in Miami federal court, AMA Multimedia sued adult tube site DrTuber.com and its owner, Igor Kovalchuk, for allegedly displaying 28 of its copyrighted works over 33 separate URLs part of DrTuber.com.
That suit said that Kovalchuk and DrTuber.com ignored each of the DMCA take-down notices delivered to its offices and that the site continues to stream the identified 28 porn movies.
The DrTuber infringement suit claims four infringement counts, as well as a separate count that charges a state claim for unauthorized publication of name and likeness in violation of Florida statutes.
In a second recent copyright infringement suit, AMA Multimedia alleges operator Aleksandr Heit, who runs ShooshTime.com and Shoosh.co, displayed 67 copyrighted adult films over 120 separate URLs and trampled on its trademarks, as well.
That suit, filed at Phoenix federal court, makes further claims that said, unlike the tube site model where users could upload videos, ShooshTime.com and Shoosh.com have no upload capabilities.
AMA Multimedia also said ShooshTime and its operator are not registered as an ISP with the U.S. Copyright Office and fail to have a registered DMCA agent.
“Therefore, all videos and content are placed on ShooshTime.com by the defendants and/or by agents of defendants at the direction and/or instruction by and on behalf of defendants,” the suit said.
Both suits allege that the companies display AMA Multimedia’s works and used its trademarks in metatags to gain financially by displaying advertisements, including front load pop-up advertising and banners, in close proximity to free videos.
The suits each seek $150,000 for each infringed film as well as a restraining order as relief.