Trending Now
  • La financiación de las acciones colectivas en el punto de mira
  • Funding of collective actions under the spotlight
Commercial Legal Innovation

Rightscorp Announces Strategic Expansion, Legal Momentum, and Introduction of Rightscan: An AI-Powered Copyright Data Aggregation Platform

By Harry Moran |
March 5, 2025

Rightscorp Announces Strategic Expansion, Legal Momentum, and Introduction of Rightscan: An AI-Powered Copyright Data Aggregation Platform

Rightscorp, Inc., a leader in digital copyright enforcement and data intelligence, is pleased to provide a comprehensive corporate update following its successful shareholder meeting. This update outlines the company’s ongoing legal achievements, strategic growth initiatives, and the preview of its transformative Rightscan Data Aggregator platform.

Commitment to Shareholders

Rightscorp extends its sincere appreciation to all shareholders who participated in the recent shareholder meeting and exercised their voting rights on proxy materials. We are pleased to announce that all resolutions were approved, demonstrating strong investor confidence in the company’s strategic direction. This support underscores a shared commitment to expanding Rightscorp’s technological and legal capabilities to maximize long-term valuation.

Establishing Legal Precedent: Rightscorp’s Pivotal Role in Copyright Enforcement

Rightscorp has consistently played a defining role in shaping legal precedent in copyright enforcement, delivering tangible results for rights holders. Over the years, the company has been instrumental in major litigation efforts that have established significant legal standards in the fight against digital piracy. Key legal milestones include:

  • BMG Rights Management v. Cox Communications (2015) – A landmark case reaffirming ISPs’ obligations under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) resulted in a $25 million jury award and $8.3 million in attorney’s fees for copyright holders, ultimately settling for an undisclosed amount. This set a pivotal precedent regarding the responsibilities of ISPs in mitigating piracy on their networks.
  • UMG Recordings, Inc. et al. v. Grande Communications Networks, LLC (2022) – A federal jury found Grande Communications liable for willful contributory copyright infringement, initially awarding $46.7 million in damages. The ruling reaffirmed that ISPs cannot claim safe harbor protection while failing to address widespread copyright violations on their networks.
  • BMG Rights Management v. Altice USA, Inc. (2022-2024) – A rapid and decisive legal action against Altice USA, one of the largest ISPs in the U.S. The case, built on overwhelming evidence provided by Rightscorp, resulted in a confidential settlement in record time, reinforcing the company’s effectiveness in securing enforcement outcomes.

These cases underscore Rightscorp’s ability to leverage sophisticated copyright data intelligence to support rights holders in enforcing their intellectual property rights through decisive legal action.

Legal Victory in American Films v. Rightscorp, Inc.

Rightscorp is pleased to report a significant legal victory in the case of American Films, LLC v. Rightscorp, Inc. The case, which stemmed from meritless claims against Rightscorp, was ultimately dismissed with prejudice, affirming the company’s legal standing. Furthermore, the court ruled in favor of Rightscorp’s entitlement to recover attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. This outcome reflects the company’s steadfast commitment to defending itself against unfounded legal challenges and reinforces the legitimacy of its operations.

Expanding Legal Initiatives Through Strategic Litigation Partnerships

To further strengthen its enforcement capabilities, Rightscorp is actively engaging with industry-leading litigation funders to scale its legal initiatives. These strategic partnerships will enable the company to pursue larger and more impactful copyright enforcement actions with increased efficiency. Additionally, Rightscorp’s long-standing legal counsel-instrumental in previous landmark copyright litigation-remains actively involved and highly optimistic about the evolving legal landscape. With expanded funding and legal expertise, Rightscorp is positioned to drive enforcement actions on a scale never seen before, benefiting copyright owners across the industry.

Rightscan Data Aggregator: A Paradigm Shift in Copyright Intelligence (Coming Q2-Q3 2025)

Rightscorp is proud to introduce Rightscan, a cutting-edge AI-powered platform designed to transform the landscape of copyright enforcement and data monetization. Unlike conventional enforcement tools that rely on self-reported infringement data, Rightscan autonomously aggregates and analyzes vast datasets, offering unparalleled insight into copyright compliance, piracy trends, and enforcement opportunities.

To learn more about Rightscan and its capabilities, visit www.rightscan.co

Key Capabilities of Rightscan:

  • DMCA Compliance Monitoring – AI-driven tracking of ISP compliance, ensuring persistent enforcement regardless of corporate restructuring or name changes.
  • Comprehensive Copyright Registration Intelligence – Analyzes official copyright filings to identify works and highlight acquisition opportunities for investors.
  • Piracy Leakage Analysis – Provides API-driven insights to royalty collection firms and content owners, quantifying lost revenue linked to digital piracy.
  • Advanced Data Monetization – Leverages proprietary data analytics to provide actionable intelligence for private equity firms, digital rights managers, and ad-tech platforms.
  • IP-Based Audience Insights – Uses torrent-related data to offer alternative audience targeting solutions, bridging the gap between piracy monitoring and digital marketing optimization.

Continued Market Demand for Rightscorp’s Legal Copyright Enforcement Platform

While Rightscan marks a significant leap in copyright intelligence, Rightscorp’s legal enforcement platform remains integral to the company’s core operations. The demand for traditional copyright enforcement remains strong among major record labels, private equity firms, and other entities that own extensive copyright portfolios.

The growing availability of litigation funding, combined with renewed interest from existing and prospective clients, is driving expansion discussions. The company is actively working with litigation funders, legal experts, and copyright owners to scale enforcement initiatives faster and more effectively than ever before.

Looking Forward: A Future Defined by Innovation and Enforcement

As Rightscorp continues to lead in copyright enforcement and data intelligence, our focus remains on technological advancement, strategic industry partnerships, and further legal precedents. By harnessing AI-driven copyright analytics, securing litigation funding, and reinforcing its market leadership, Rightscorp is setting the stage for sustained growth and enhanced value for its shareholders.

About

Rightscorp (OTC PINK:RIHT) monetizes copyrighted Intellectual Property (IP). The Company’s patent pending digital loss prevention technology focuses on the infringement of digital content such as music, movies, software, and games and ensures that owners and creators are rightfully paid for their IP. Rightscorp implements existing laws to solve copyright infringements by collecting payments from illegal file sharing activities via notifications sent through Internet Service Providers (ISPs). The Company’s technology identifies copyright infringers, who are offered a reasonable settlement option when compared to the legal liability defined in the Digital Millennium Copyrights Act (DMCA). Based on the fact that 24% of all internet traffic is used to distribute copyrighted content without permission, Rightscorp is pursuing an estimated $2.3 billion opportunity and has monetized major media titles through relationships with industry leaders.

Safe Harbor Statement

This shareholder update contains information that constitutes forward-looking statements made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Any such forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from any future results described within the forward-looking statements. Risk factors that could contribute to such differences include those matters more fully disclosed in the Company’s reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The forward-looking information provided herein represents the Company’s estimates as of the date of the shareholder update, and subsequent events and developments may cause the Company’s estimates to change. The Company specifically disclaims any obligation to update the forward-looking information in the future. Therefore, this forward-looking information should not be relied upon as representing the Company’s estimates of its future financial performance as of any date subsequent to the date of this shareholder update.

CONTACT:

Markus Rainak
855-520-7448
Support@rightscorp.com

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

Harry Moran

Harry Moran

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Inside India’s Insolvency Regime

By John Freund |

A new joint study by the Insolvency Law Academy and Burford Capital sheds light on how legal finance is gaining traction as a strategic tool in the India's insolvency processes. By enabling distressed entities and professionals to monetize contingent assets without exhausting limited estate resources, legal finance has the power to enhance liquidity and improve recovery outcomes for creditors.

An article by Burford Capital unveils how legal finance-backed structures can convert contingent claims into tangible value, supporting corporate continuity and delivering stronger creditor returns. The study highlights India’s unique factors: abundant untapped recoveries from avoidance claims and disputed receivables, widespread capital shortages faced by insolvency professionals, and the need for prompt liquidity solutions. It also references real-world case studies showcasing how legal finance facilitated strategic wins for firms like Hindustan Construction Company and Patel Engineering.

On the regulatory front, judicial rulings—such as in Tomorrow Sales v. SBS Holdings (2023)—have explicitly recognized the legitimacy of legal finance in India’s litigation ecosystem. Meanwhile, updates to the IBC now permit the assignment of “not readily reali[z]able assets” during liquidation, laying groundwork for integrating legal finance into the insolvency framework. Nonetheless, the regulatory landscape—including aspects of FEMA compliance and fund repatriation—remains cautiously permissive.

Emerging operational structures include direct estate financing, SPV‑based claim ring‑fencing, and creditor assignments for immediate value. The report urges a “light‑touch” regulatory approach, alongside the development of codes of conduct and educational efforts to arm insolvency professionals and creditors with the know‑how to deploy legal finance effectively.

Looking ahead, as India’s insolvency infrastructure matures, legal finance is poised to play a central role—unlocking value in distressed assets, bridging funding gaps, and aligning with global best practices.

Commercial Deals

Burford’s Law-Firm Investment Plan Draws Fire

By John Freund |

Burford Capital’s new push to take minority stakes in U.S. law firms is already meeting resistance from tort-reform advocates and insurer-aligned groups, who argue the structure could blur loyalties inside the attorney-client relationship. The plan, described by Burford’s chief development officer Travis Lenkner as “strategic minority investments” to help firms scale, would rely on managed service organizations (MSOs) that house back-office assets while leaving legal work to a lawyer-owned entity. Supporters cast it as a lawyer-friendly alternative to private equity; skeptics see a back-door end-run around state bars’ bans on non-lawyer ownership.

An article in Insurance Journal reports that critics, including the Florida Justice Reform Institute’s William Large, warn MSO-style deals could tilt decision-making toward investors focused on “big verdicts,” threatening firm independence and client interests. Only Arizona permits direct non-lawyer ownership today, and while Utah and Washington, D.C., have loosened rules at the margins, most states still enforce bright-line prohibitions.

The debate has sharpened as disclosure and licensing regimes proliferate: at least 16 states now require some level of third-party funding transparency. The Insurance Journal piece also notes a recent Texas Bar ethics opinion that green-lights MSOs for law-firm services under narrow conditions, though it doesn’t answer the broader question of outside investors’ influence. For its part, Burford says it understands the ethical guardrails and intends to be a passive investor focused on firm growth and operational support.

For the legal finance industry, the MSO path signals a pivotal test. If bars and courts accept these structures, capital could flow directly into firm operations—potentially accelerating portfolio origination, technology spend, and fee-earner leverage. If regulators balk, expect renewed calls for explicit rulemaking on ownership, disclosure, and control—alongside creative alternatives (credit facilities, revenue shares, and hybrid portfolios) to replicate MSO-like benefits without the governance controversy.

Case Developments Commercial

BHP Presses Gramercy–Pogust on Control of £36bn Claim

By John Freund |

A high-stakes governance fight is spilling into the UK’s largest group action. BHP has demanded clarity over hedge fund Gramercy Funds Management’s role at Pogust Goodhead, the claimant firm fronting a £36 billion suit tied to Brazil’s 2015 Mariana dam disaster. The miner’s counsel at Slaughter and May points to recent leadership turmoil at the firm and questions whether a non-lawyer financier can exert de facto control over litigation strategy—an issue that cuts to the heart of legal ethics and England & Wales’ restrictions on who can direct claims.

Financial Times reports that Gramercy, which finances Pogust, has just extended $65 million more to the firm after the removal of CEO-cofounder Tom Goodhead. BHP wants answers on independence and management oversight as the case nears a pivotal High Court ruling. For its part, Pogust says it remains independent and committed to its clients, while Gramercy rejects any suggestion it owns or manages the firm. The backdrop is familiar to funders: courts’ increasing scrutiny of who calls the shots when capital underwrites complex, bet-the-company litigation. Prior settlement overtures from BHP and Vale—reported at $1.4 billion—were rebuffed as insufficient relative to the claim’s scale and alleged harm.

Beyond this case, the episode underscores a larger question: how far can financing arrangements go before they collide with the long-standing principle that lawyers—and only lawyers—control litigation? The answer matters well beyond Mariana. If courts or legislators tighten the definition of control, expect deal terms, governance covenants, and disclosure norms in UK funding to evolve quickly. For cross-border mass-harm claims, the line between support and steer is narrowing—and being tested in real time.