• Visit us on Facebook
  • Visit us on Twitter
  • RSS


Page 30 of 33 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... LastLast
Results 581 to 600 of 655
  1. #581
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Yesterday
    Posts
    4,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    MPAA “Dramatically Expanding” ACE Global Anti-Piracy Coalition

    The Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, the huge anti-piracy coalition that already boasts 33 of the world's largest entertainment companies as members, is about to get bigger. According to MPAA chief Charles Rivkin, the global initiative is about to get a "dramatic" expansion, which is likely to place further pressure on pirates worldwide.


    For more than 15 years and mainly since the rise of BitTorrent-based sharing, sites and platforms offering Hollywood movies or TV shows have been wary of the MPAA.


    At any moment, BitTorrent trackers and indexers could find themselves in the group’s crosshairs, targeted by full-blown lawsuits or threats that the same would follow, if infringing activity continued.


    But while the threat was real, litigation has always been expensive, sometimes prohibitively so. Furthermore, video content being shared by pirates wasn’t always owned by the studios of the MPAA, allowing many sites to slip through the net.


    In June 2017, the MPAA began plugging both of these loopholes with the launch of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), a huge anti-piracy coalition featuring not only MPAA members, but companies like Amazon, Netflix, CBS, HBO, and the BBC.


    After adding Discovery Inc. and two Viacom-owned companies back in March, ACE now has 33 members. This not only means that it’s becoming more and more difficult to run a ‘pirate’ video platform or service without treading on at least one member’s toes, but there are almost three dozen large to huge companies now sharing the financial burden of chasing down pirates.


    Now, according to MPAA chief Charles Rivkin, ACE is about to become even more powerful.


    In an interview with WorldScreen, Rivkin detailed some of ACE’s achievements so far, such as shutting down 123Movies and taking on TickBox and Dragon Box, companies operating in the so-called ISD (illicit streaming device) market. A case against Omniverse is still ongoing.


    “We were able to win in court against pirate operators called TickBox and Dragon Box, and they represent a new threat: the internet streaming devices, the ISDs, that are basically devices that can be purchased completely legally but when loaded with illegal software, can do enormous damage to content. It’s a never-ending fight, but we’re starting to make a big difference,” he said.


    “And it’s an existential threat for some of the small and medium businesses that make up the industry. I was speaking to some broadcasters in Paris who said that piracy can be as big as their entire bottom line. And the impact on entertainment companies is huge, so this is a top priority for us.”


    That Rivkin mentions 123Movies (Vietnam), then Tickbox and Dragon Box (United States), followed by France (Canal+ is an ACE member), shows that the fight against piracy is going global. ACE has already targeted several Kodi-related platforms and add-ons in the UK since its inception, yet another sign that no important region is off-limits.


    If there is business worth doing there, ACE either has it covered already or will have it in hand fairly soon.


    “Every major market has a participating member. We’re in the process of dramatically expanding [ACE] even more. It is already the premier global effort to reduce piracy,” Rivkin added.


    How this expansion will manifest itself is not yet clear, but it seems likely that ACE will continue with its strategy of ‘loud’ public litigation (such as that taken against TickBox and Dragon Box) and selective ‘quiet’ action against certain players.


    Last month, ACE told TorrentFreak that it had “sought and obtained voluntary cooperation from a significant number of owners, operators, and developers of sites, add-ons, and services” that facilitate piracy.


    “We will execute more planned global actions along these lines and look to continue our success protecting creators around the world,” ACE spokesperson Richard VanOrnum added.


    These ‘quiet’ actions are of course intriguing.


    From the limited information available to us, it seems clear that they vastly outnumber the volume of ‘loud’ actions seen thus far and mainly target products with a large audience (Kodi add-ons and builds, for example) but without the obvious commercial element of many ‘pirate’ sites and services.


    However, we have received information which suggests that large platforms may not be immune from being presented with settlement agreements, which form part of the process to cease-and-desist.


    This complicates reporting because documentation previously seen by TF requires those targeted not to tell anyone apart from their lawyers about the approach to shut down. In return, ACE promises not to make their identities known, meaning that details shared are kept to a minimum.


    For example, last week huge IPTV service Vader shut down, stating that it had been approached by companies seeking its closure. The platform didn’t mention ACE directly but if anyone would like them to close down, ACE would be the prime candidate.


    We asked ACE if the coalition was behind the closure and a spokesperson promised to send over a statement. Thus far, however, we haven’t received anything back. While a comment may yet be forthcoming, an additional document sent to TF (the veracity of which we haven’t been able to independently confirm), suggests that Vader has been given the opportunity to settle.


    If that’s indeed the case, the matter could potentially disappear into the ether, as so many other services and tools have also done in recent times. Either way, we can probably expect much more of this type of action in the future, as ACE’s “drastic” expansion brings in more funds and tentacles in every corner of the world.


    TorrentFreak


  2. #582
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Yesterday
    Posts
    4,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    RIAA Obtains Subpoena to Expose ‘Infringing’ Cloudflare Users

    The RIAA has obtained a subpoena from a Columbia federal court ordering Cloudflare to hand over the IP and email addresses and all other identifying information related to several allegedly infringing users. The RIAA notes it will use the information it receives to protect the rights of its member companies.Despite the increased availability of legal options, millions of people still stream, rip, or download MP3s from unofficial sources.


    These sites are a thorn in the side of the RIAA, one of the music industry’s leading anti-piracy outfits.


    The RIAA has a long history of going after, what it sees as, pirate sites. The problem, however, is that many owners of such sites operate anonymously. The group, therefore, often has to turn to third-party intermediaries to find out more.


    While some services may be willing to voluntarily share information with the music industry group, many don’t. Cloudflare falls into the latter category. While the CDN service does voluntarily reveal the true hosting locations of some of its users, it doesn’t share any personal info. At least, not without a subpoena.


    Luckily for rightsholders, getting a subpoena isn’t very hard in the US. Under the DMCA, copyright holders only have to ask a court clerk for a signature to be able to demand the personal information of alleged copyright infringers. That’s exactly what the RIAA did last week.


    In a letter sent by Mark McDevitt, the RIAA’s vice president of online anti-piracy, the music group informs Cloudflare that it requests personal details including names, addresses and payment information relating to the operators of six domains, which are all Cloudflare users.


    The domains in question include those connected to the file-hosting site DBREE, music release site RapGodFathers, file-host AyeFiles, and music download portal Plus Premieres. The sites are accused of sharing copyrighted tracks from artists such as Pink, Drake, and Taylor Swift.


    “We have determined that users of your system or network have infringed our member record companies’ copyrighted sound recordings. Enclosed is a subpoena compliant with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,” the RIAA’s McDevitt writes.


    “As is stated in the attached subpoena, you are required to disclose to the RIAA information sufficient to identify the infringers. This would include the individuals’ names, physical addresses, IP addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, payment information, account updates and account history.”


    The RIAA stresses that the mentioned files are offered without permission and it asks Cloudflare to consider the widespread and repeated infringing nature of the sites and whether these warrant a termination under its repeat infringer policy.


    At the time of writing the sites are still using Cloudflare’s services. However, the allegedly infringing files are no longer available. These were presumably removed by the site owners.


    There is no obvious connection between all the targeted sites. However, RapGodFathers is a familiar name when it comes to anti-piracy enforcement. Nearly ten years ago, the site was targeted by the U.S. Government, but the name is still around today.


    It is unclear what RIAA plans to do with the requested information. It could form the basis of a legal complaint, but the music group may also use it to contact the site operators more directly. The letter only mentions that the information will be used to protect the rights of RIAA member companies.


    “The purpose for which this subpoena is sought is to obtain the identities of the individuals assigned to these websites who have reproduced and have offered for distribution our members’ copyrighted sound recordings without their authorization.


    “This information will only be used for the purposes of protecting the rights granted to our members, the sound recording copyright owner, under Title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,” the letter adds.


    What this “protection” entails remains a mystery for now.


    While the court clerk signed the DMCA subpoena, Cloudflare still has the option to object, by asking the court to quash it. However, thus far there are no signs that the company plans to do so.


    TorrentFreak

  3. #583
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Yesterday
    Posts
    4,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    NBA and UFC Urge U.S. Lawmakers to Criminalize Streaming Piracy

    Two major players in the US sports industries, the NBA and the UFC, have informed lawmakers that illicit online streaming hurts their business. Both urge Congress to criminalize streaming piracy, which is currently only punishable as a misdemeanor. The organizations stressed that casual users should be left alone, although a Game of Thrones-loving Senator feels that some penalties for users are warranted.Under U.S. law, streaming and downloading piracy are seen as two different offenses. Not just from a technical point of view, but also in the way they are punished.


    Unauthorized streaming is categorized as a public performance instead of distribution, which is punishable as a misdemeanor, not a felony.


    Lawmakers tried to change this with the Commercial Felony Streaming Act in 2011, and later with the SOPA and PIPA bills. These bills were met with public outrage and didn’t pass.


    As a result, the gap between streaming and traditional file-sharing still remains today. However, calls to change this continue to resurface, especially now that streaming piracy is much more prevalent than file-sharing and downloading.


    During a hearing at the Senate Committee on the Judiciary last week, two major US sports organizations renewed their calls to criminalize streaming.


    Among the speakers were Michael Potenza, vice president and intellectual property counsel for the NBA, as well as Riché McKnight, who’s the Global Head Of Litigation at the UFC’s parent company Endeavor. Both sounded the alarm bell about streaming piracy, live streaming in particular.


    Potenza informed the subcommittee on Intellectual Property that his organization relies on streaming and that it has benefited from the technological advancements that were made in recent years. However, these same technologies are abused by pirates.


    To fight streaming piracy, the NBA has implemented a multi-pronged approach, of which takedown notices are an important part. The sports league uses a combination of human reviewers and technology to spot illegal broadcasts and tries to shut these down as soon as possible. Unfortunately, many of these reappear soon after.


    “Even when the NBA is successful in shutting down an illegal streaming website or social media accounts, continued vigilance during all live games is important, as the illegal streams often reappear at a new domain extension or social media account,” Potenza said.


    In some cases, illegal streams are operated or promoted by criminal enterprises. These sell dedicated pirate streaming boxes, unauthorized subscriptions, or offer web-based streaming portals. These dedicated streams can be virtually impossible to shut down, as they are hosted by companies that ignore takedown notices.


    “Some of these bad actors actively promote non-compliance with DMCA notices as a reason to sign-up for their ‘DMCA Ignored Hosting’ services.


    Platforms that utilize these services and fail to respond to take down notices in a timely manner do so intentionally,” Potenza noted.


    McKnight shared many of the same concerns. He pointed out that UFC events are severely impacted by piracy and hinted that social media and other digital platforms should step up their game. This includes terminating accounts of known infringers, but these companies could do more.


    “In addition, digital platforms should consider sending out piracy notices to their users before live events — or if that is not feasible, then at least periodically — reminding them that piracy is illegal. Much like the copyright notices at the start of a movie, these warnings can remind law-abiding viewers that unauthorized streaming is illegal,” McKnight said.


    Another common theme was a renewed call to criminalize online streaming. Both witnesses said that this could help to deter people from getting involved in the pirate streaming business.


    “Without a real fear of criminal prosecution, pirates are emboldened to continue engaging in illegal activity to distribute sports content – whether it is manufacturing and selling ISDs or operating an illegal streaming service,” NBA’s Potenza said.


    “It is important to revise the criminal law to recognize illegal streaming of copyrighted content as a felony, which would provide a more effective way to deter illegal streaming,” he added.


    This call was backed by Endeavor’s Global Head Of Litigation, who added that criminalizing streaming could motivate other countries to follow suit.


    “Strengthening the penalties will deter illegal streaming and increase the likelihood of prosecutors bringing these cases to court. In addition, it will send a message to the rest of the world that the United States takes this issue seriously, and will provide other countries an incentive to take similar actions,” McKnight noted.


    While the NBA and the UFC’s parent company agree that penalties for streaming should be similar to those of other forms of piracy, both witnesses stressed that this criminalization should target organized operations, not casual users.


    “I would clarify that, in terms of proportionality, we’re not seeking these types of penalties for people who simply log onto a pirated stream. Or even just for people who upload a pirated stream or two onto a social media platform,” McKnight said.


    “I think the casual viewer who’s streaming a game in his or her own home shouldn’t be subject to felony liability, or even misdemeanor liability,” Potenza added.


    Interestingly, the subcommittee Chairman, Senator Thom Tillis, jumped in at this point noting that he believes some penalties are warranted. Just the other day, he was tempted to look for a pirated copy of Game of Thrones, and potential penalties could motivate people to turn to legal sources more often.


    “I’m a Game of Thrones fan and I missed the Sunday night episode. Fortunately, I have HBO on demand, so I caught up last night, but there was a temptation for me to go out on the internet and see if I can find some way to get it. I didn’t do it, but if I had, I think it would have been fair if I had some minor penalty,” Tillis said.


    “That may at least make the general public a little bit more mindful that if you get caught you’re going to pay for it. You need to be aware of that and make sure that you’re going to sites that are legally disseminating the information. I don’t want to completely let the consuming public off the hook,” the Senator added.


    Based on this response, it seems that there is at least some support in Congress to criminalize unauthorized streaming. However, for now, there are no concrete proposals on the table yet.


    Source:TorrentFreak






  4. #584
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Yesterday
    Posts
    4,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ukraine Cyberpolice Raid Pirate Sites, Detain Government Employee

    As Ukraine continues its crackdown on pirate sites, the government has netted itself a surprise suspect. After shuttering four illegal streaming platforms, authorities detained two men - one of whom works for the State Fiscal Service, a high-level government department handling taxes and customs while tackling fraud.


    During April the Ukrainian government announced the launch of “Operation Pirates”, an anti-piracy initiative aimed at tackling the rising threat of online piracy.


    “We must learn how to respect intellectual works, because at first glance, watching a videotape on a pirate resource does not pose any threat to the security of society,” said Ukrainian cyberpolice chief Sergey Demedyuk.


    A memorandum accompanying the initiative was signed by Starlight Media (Ukraine’s largest broadcasting group), Media Group Ukraine (one of the largest media holding companies), TV channel Studio 1 + 1, Discovery Networks, IFPI-member Music Industry Association of Ukraine, and the Ukrainian Anti-Piracy Association.


    Since the launch of the campaign, no pirate sites have been reported as fallen. This week, however, police announced that they had successfully taken down four video streaming platforms.


    The main casualty was kinogo.co.ua, a site specializing in movies and TV shows. It was one of the most popular sites of its kind in Ukraine. According to SimilarWeb data, the site was good for around 500,000 daily visits in the month before its demise.


    Close to 84% of the site’s traffic came from Ukraine, with many of those visitors also going on to visit UAFilm.top, a pirate site operating in the same niche receiving around 100,000 daily visits.


    These sites, along with the recently-launched kino-hd.top (200,000 daily visits) and the relatively small kino-hd.top, were all shuttered in the latest operation. Police targeted the location from where the sites were administered and the home addresses of the suspects.


    According to Ukraine’s cyberpolice unit, the operators of all four platforms were two brothers, aged 38 and 32, from the Dnipropetrovsk region in eastern Ukraine.


    Interestingly, one of the men is reported as working for the government’s State Fiscal Service, which handles taxes, customs, and the fight against tax and customs fraud. As a result, officers also reportedly carried out a search at the suspect’s place of employment, seizing equipment.


    As is common with the majority of similar platforms worldwide, the four now-defunct streaming sites are said to have generated revenue via advertising. No exact figures have been released but the authorities suggest income of several thousand dollars per month.


    Police say that a pre-trial investigation under Part 3 of Article 176 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which deals with copyright and other intellectual property rights violations, is underway. If found guilty, the brothers face fines or imprisonment of up to six years.


    In earlier operations carried out this year, Ukrainian authorities shut down more than 60 pirate sites, most operating in the streaming sector.


    Meanwhile, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has opted to keep Ukraine on its latest Priority Watch List published last month.


    “Online piracy remains a significant problem in Ukraine and fuels piracy in other markets,” the report reads.


    “Pirated films generated from illegal camcording and made available online cause particular damage to the market for first-run movies. In addition, inadequate enforcement continues to raise concerns among IP stakeholders in Ukraine.”



  5. #585
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Yesterday
    Posts
    4,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    Cox Will Share Names of ‘Pirating’ Business Subscribers With Record Labels

    As part of an ongoing lawsuit against several record labels, Internet provider Cox Communications has agreed to share the names and addresses of business subscribers who've been accused of sharing pirated material. The disclosure is cemented in a stipulated court order. What the labels plan to do with the information is currently unknown.Last summer, Cox ended its piracy liability lawsuit with music company BMG, agreeing to a “substantial settlement.”


    That didn’t mean an end to the ISP’s legal trouble though. Cox remains caught up in another lawsuit filed by a group of major music labels, all members of the RIAA.


    The labels argue that Cox categorically failed to terminate repeat copyright infringers and that it substantially profited from this ongoing ‘piracy’ activity. All at the expense of the record labels and other rightsholders.


    Most of these alleged copyright-infringers are situated in regular households. However, Cox also offers Internet connections to business clients and many of these – 2,793 to be precise – were also flagged as pirates.


    This essentially means that the ISP received copyright infringement notices for activity that took place on the IP-addresses that were assigned to these companies. This is a group of customers the RIAA labels are particularly interested in.


    During discovery, the labels have asked Cox to identify these business subscribers. The ISP initially only shared some billing and payment data, but that was not enough for the music companies, which want names and addresses as well.


    This is a rather broad request that we haven’t seen before, one that puts the Internet provider in a tough spot. Not least because handing over personal data of customers without a court order goes against its privacy policy.


    This week Cox and the labels submitted a proposed stipulated order in which the ISP agrees to hand over the information. There doesn’t appear to have been any opposition from the ISP, but both parties request a signed court order to address the privacy policy restrictions.


    The order, swiftly signed by U.S. District Court Judge Liam O’Grady, requires the ISP to identify the 2,793 business subscribers for which it received copyright infringement notices between February 1, 2013 and November 26, 2014.


    “It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between Plaintiffs and Cox that Cox shall make reasonable efforts to notify the Business Subscribers, within five days of entry of this Stipulated Order, of Cox’s intent to disclose their name and contact information to Plaintiffs pursuant to this Order,”.


    The order also requires Cox to alert the affected business subscribers, who will then have the option to protest the decision. If that doesn’t happen, the personal information will be handed over to the labels.


    The names and addresses of the business subscribers won’t be made public, as they fall under an earlier signed protective order. This states that any personal information of subscribers is classified as “highly confidential” data which means that it’s for attorneys’ eyes only.


    While the paperwork is in order, one burning question remains. Why are the RIAA labels interested in knowing which businesses were flagged for copyright infringement?


    There are no signs that any of these companies will be pursued individually. What is clear, however, is that the music companies see the information as substantial evidence that will help to argue their case. Time will tell what the exact purpose is.


    TorrentFreak






  6. #586
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Yesterday
    Posts
    4,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    Judge: IP-Address Doesn’t Locate or Identify a BitTorrent Pirate

    Strike 3 Holdings has identified hundreds of alleged copyright infringers through US courts. This often happens without much hassle, but this week the company suffered a major setback. Florida District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro refused to issue a subpoena, stating that IP-address evidence is not enough to locate or identify an alleged pirate.Since the start of this decade, hundreds of thousands of alleged BitTorrent pirates have been sued by so-called ‘copyright trolls’ in the United States.


    The select group of rightsholders that file these cases generally rely on an IP address as evidence. They then ask the courts to grant a subpoena, ordering Internet providers to hand over the personal details of the associated account holder.


    While some judges have refused to do so in the past, many District Courts still issue these subpoenas. However, over the years judges have grown more skeptical about the provided evidence. This includes Florida District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro.


    In February, Judge Ungaro was assigned a case filed by the adult entertainment company “Strike 3 Holdings,” which has filed hundreds of lawsuits over the past several months.


    The company accused IP-address “72.28.136.217” of sharing its content through BitTorrent without permission. The Judge, however, was reluctant to issue a subpoena. She asked the company how the use of geolocation and other technologies could reasonably pinpoint the identity and location of the alleged infringer.


    Responding to this order to show cause, Strike 3 explained that it used Maxmind’s database to link the IP-address to Internet provider Cogeco and a location in Southern Florida. According to Maxmind, its IP address tracing service is roughly 95% accurate in the US, so the rightsholder is confident that it filed the case in the right court.


    Strike 3 further admitted that, at this point, it doesn’t know whether the account holder is the actual copyright infringer. However, the company believes that this is the most plausible target and says it will try to find out more once the identity of the person in question is revealed.


    That was not good enough for Judge Ungaro. In an order released this week she writes that, other than stating that it’s “plausible” that the infringer can be identified through the IP-address, Strike 3 failed to explain how the geolocation software can properly identify or locate the actual infringer.


    “There is nothing that links the IP address location to the identity of the person actually downloading and viewing Plaintiff’s videos, and establishing whether that person lives in this district,” Judge Ungaro writes.


    The order points out that an IP-address alone can’t identify someone. As such, it can’t accurately pinpoint the person who allegedly downloaded the copyright infringing content.


    “For example, it is entirely possible that the IP address belongs to a coffee shop or open Wi-Fi network, which the alleged infringer briefly used on a visit to Miami,” Judge Ungaro notes.


    “Even if the IP address were located within a residence in this district, the geolocation software cannot identify who has access to that residence’s computer and who actually used it to infringe Plaintiff’s copyright,” she adds.


    Strike 3 stressed that many courts have issued subpoenas based on the exact same evidence. While that is true, the Judge counters that other courts, which also doubted the strength of an IP-address as evidence, have refused to do so.


    In this instance, the Court finds that Strike 3 hasn’t provided sufficient evidence to argue that it can reasonably rely on the usage of geolocation to establish the identity of the accused downloader. Nor does it prove that the person lives in the Court’s jurisdiction.


    As a result, the Court refused to issue a subpoena and dismissed the case against IP-address 72.28.136.217 for improper venue. The case is closed and Strike 3 won’t get the opportunity to refile.


    While not all judges may come to the same conclusion, the order is a setback for Strike 3 and other rightsholders. They clearly have to come up with other arguments or evidence if their case is handled by this Judge.


    But that shouldn’t really come as a complete surprise, as Judge Ungaro has issued similar orders in the past.


    TorrentFreak

  7. #587
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Yesterday
    Posts
    4,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    Fancy a Job in Covert Anti-Piracy? Only Experts Need Apply

    Anti-piracy work by its very nature is usually conducted in the shadows, with only the results visible to the public. However, a job listing posted by the BPI recently gives more insight, with the right candidate managing everything from investigations through to covert credit cards, covert drop addresses, and covert social media accounts. Even working with the police.

    With a huge emphasis placed on the unlicensed distribution of music through platforms like YouTube, one might think that enforcement against other sources has taken a bit of a back seat.

    However, traditional anti-piracy investigations are alive and well, carried out mostly in the shadows by teams of professionals. It’s relatively rare to hear about these roles in public but a new listing posted by the British Phonographic Industry gives a flavor of the kinds of skills one would need to hold such a job.

    Titled ‘Evidence, Intelligence & Investigations Executive (Digital)’, the position currently waiting to be filled at the company is an important one. The BPI represents the interests of Sony, Universal and Warner in the UK, along with more than 400 independent labels.

    “Collectively, all those members account for approximately 99 per cent of recorded music consumed legally within the UK each year,” the BPI notes.

    The new addition to the BPI’s Content Protection team will have several key responsibilities, such as ensuring the industry group is in compliance with laws and regulations when evidence is collected in the pursuit of pirates.

    He or she will also be responsible for investigating online infringement, and as such, will have previous experience of digital investigations and be fluent in the use of case management and forensic tools.

    Given the nature of the work, candidates also require a good understanding of piracy and the tools used to carry it out. The same goes for web-hosting, Internet registries (domains etc), content delivery networks (Cloudflare etc) and advertising intermediaries, all of which can be leveraged to disrupt infringement.

    Since it’s a primary tool to reduce infringement, enforcing content removal “across a variety of online platforms” will also be a key task. As detailed in our report last year, the BPI is a prolific DMCA notice sender but unlike many outfits operating with huge volumes, also appears to be one of the most accurate. This certainly fits the requirement for the lucky applicant to be “meticulous in work output.”

    Another novel aspect is that the successful candidate will be required to manage test purchases, which could conceivably range from subscribing to an online pirate service through to buying a bunch of pirate karaoke DVDs from eBay. Interestingly, this will also entail managing “covert credit cards” and “covert drop addresses”.

    But the undercover action doesn’t stop there. Also in the job description is the managing of “covert social media accounts”, which suggests a level of penetration into piracy circles that many believed existed but hadn’t yet seen written down in black and white.

    At this point, there are probably quite a few readers thinking that not only does the job sound quite interesting, but they’re also qualified for the position. That might indeed be the case if one can also show expert use of Excel and PowerPoint and “good working knowledge” of IBM i2 and SQL databases. But from there the requirements go on and on.

    Preferred candidates will have a background in law enforcement, criminal law, or cyber investigations. They will also be experienced in computer forensics and writing witness statements, utilizing their knowledge of copyright law, of course.

    The reasons for this are made fairly clear in the listing. In addition to preparing intelligence and evidence that might be used in the prosecution of pirates, the lucky applicant will also spend one day a week working at PIPCU, the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit.

    There’s little doubt that the BPI will find the right person for the job, but ticking all of the boxes in the listing will be a big ask. Especially when assisting the BPI with its lobbying activities with ISPs and other service providers is also one of the job’s requirements.

    TorrentFreak

  8. #588
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Yesterday
    Posts
    4,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    Lumen Database Restricts Access to DMCA Notices But Plans to Expand

    The Lumen Database, a research project designed to facilitate research on takedown notices, has made a significant change to the way it offers data.


    While it will still be possible for researchers to access data with a special login, regular users will have to apply via email to see the details of a notice in full. The changes have been made in preparation for an expansion of its operations.With millions of takedown notices hitting Internet platforms and hosts every single week, content can often go inexplicably missing from sites and search engine indexes.


    Thanks to projects like Google’s Transparency report, however, much-needed light can be shone on this murky area.


    Users of Google’s service can see almost every detail of a copyright claim but when it comes to accurate research, it’s necessary to visit the Lumen Database, a research project that hosts millions of notices submitted by some of the biggest Internet companies.


    The resource has become an essential tool for researchers and reporters interested in the cease-and-desist landscape. However, new changes at the resource will mean that the majority of users will now have less initial access to data.


    In a nutshell, takedown notices presented in Lumen’s database will no longer list the precise URLs targeted by copyright holders. Instead, as the image below illustrates, the notices only list how many URLs were targeted at specific domains.Lumen has removed the specific URL details, which are absolutely crucial if one is to even begin researching the effects of a particular takedown notice. However, on every redacted notice is a hyperlink which presents a system through which it is possible to get an unredacted copy.


    Regular users wanting to properly research a notice now have to enter their email address to receive a single-use link to view it in full.


    TorrentFreak learned that changes would be made to the system a few months ago after we discovered a development version of the platform. On a personal level, we were initially concerned at the restrictions since it is not uncommon for us to view dozens of takedown notices in preparation for a single article.


    However, it now transpires that researchers and journalists will be able to obtain a special login to the Lumen Database that its operators hope will provide an experience that’s largely unchanged. That means we’ll continue to bring news on interesting takedowns and report on various trends.


    That being said, the bigger question is why Lumen has taken this decision. Lumen project manager Adam Holland informs TorrentFreak that it’s all about expanding and improving the service.


    “Lumen wants to remain a vibrant and valuable feature of the landscape with respect to research, journalism, and public awareness around takedown requests. We believe that we have been successful at doing this over the years and that some great work has come out of, or been predicated on, our data,” Holland says.


    “But we also feel that it’s both possible and necessary for Lumen to continue to grow and improve. One obvious way in which to do so is to expand the number and type of notices we receive, as well as the range of institutions from which we receive them. We’ve heard from some companies that although they’d like to share notices with us, for a variety of idiosyncratic reasons, they don’t feel that they can do so under the current Lumen schema.”


    Sensitivity over the amount of information made available by Lumen under default settings will also play an important role as the platform expands. Holland says that DMCA complaints will form just part of the project moving forward, with other forms of takedown notices from all over the world augmenting the database.


    “We wish to be conscious of the concerns of those sending this broader variety of notices,” he says.


    As readers will probably recall, the Lumen project has previously been subjected to criticism by copyright holders. We asked Holland if this had played a part in the decision to redact notices for more casual users of the resource, who some allege may have used it to obtain links to infringing content.


    “Our traffic metrics simply don’t bear out any suggestion that the database is a viable tool for those seeking access to infringing or unauthorized content. But, we have always endeavored to strike a balance,” he explains.


    “We think that the new framework allows the research community to stay informed while in no way compromising research done with the database. It also — importantly — reduces the significant workload associated with database maintenance, which will free up Lumen staff to do more productive things.”


    We put it to Holland that there will probably be some members of the public who won’t enjoy jumping through additional hoops to gain full access to notices. However, he says that Lumen doesn’t really have a good sense from its traffic volumes how many people use the resource for specific reasons.


    But while reduced access will probably be disappointing to some, there are those who see this development as a double-edged sword.


    TorrentFreak spoke with a representative from an anti-piracy company who told us that less visibility for URLs will be welcomed by his clients.


    “As a DMCA agent for copyright owners, I can say that Lumen and its predecessor Chilling Effects have long been seen as making a mockery of Google’s takedown procedure – why delist search results if those same results are all still listed in a notice linked at the bottom of the page?” he said.


    “But I appreciate that the DMCA process can be and has been easily abused, so it’s important to have some kind of ability to check on potential censorship and/or erroneous takedowns.


    “So while my clients will surely welcome a change that makes it trickier to access infringing material, I share the concerns of those who may feel that this places obstacles in the way of legitimate research and accountability.”


    Finally, it’s worth noting the large effort expended by the Lumen team to keep the project going. The platform is currently receiving up to 70,000 notices per day (mostly filed under the DMCA) with many requiring redactions to preserve privacy.


    These can be handled automatically but Holland explains that manual redactions take place frequently, with a single notice potentially taking 20 minutes or more to process.


    Lumen kindly provided a list of companies and institutions that contribute (or have contributed) to the database. Any parties interesting in joining this group are invited to contact the project.




    Automattic/Wordpress
    Counterfeit Technology
    Google
    The Internet Archive
    Kickstarter
    Medium
    Periscope
    PGPSMedia [not currently sending]
    Proxy.sh
    Reddit [not currently sending]
    Stack Exchange
    Stripe [not currently sending]
    Tucows
    Tuebl [not currently sending]
    Twitter
    UC Berkeley – Infosec and policy
    UC Berkeley – California Digital Library
    UC Berkeley -Open Computing Facility
    Vimeo
    Wikia
    Wikipedia/Wikimedia
    YouTube


    TorrentFreak

  9. #589

    Join Date
    May 2019
    Last Online
    21-05-2019
    Posts
    16
    Post Thanks / Like
    “Confidential” HDMI Specifications Docs Hit With DMCA Takedown

    A Github user who archived documents detailing every HDMI specification since its inception has been hit with a DMCA takedown notice. According to Consumer Technology Association member HDMI Licensing Administrator LLC, the documents are both copyrighted and confidential. A second notice, filed by the CTA itself, curiously demanded the removal of publicly available documents.


    HDMI (High Definition Multimedia Interface) is today’s standard for transferring digital video and audio between compatible devices.


    The standard variant comes as a male connector (plug) or female connector (socket). Chances are that most people will have many of these scattered around their homes, with TVs, monitors, set-top boxes, video games consoles, and dozens of other video-capable devices utilizing the interface.


    It’s no surprise then that the list of companies that have adopted the HDMI standard for their products is huge, with founders including Maxell, Panasonic, Sanyo, Philips, and Sony leading the way.


    Since its inception back in 2002, many versions of HDMI have been developed, each utilizing the same basic connector but with added features. While new functions aren’t available to users of pre-update hardware, the entire system is backward compatible.


    These updates (which are given version numbers such as HDMI 1.0 (2002) right up to the latest HDMI 2.1 (2017)) are described in technical specifications documents. However, according to the HDMI Licensing Administrator, Inc., the licensing agent for the HDMI product, these documents are not only copyrighted but also contain secret information.


    Github user ‘Glenwing’ has been archiving these documents for the last few years in his personal “Display Industry Standards Archive” but was recently hit with a DMCA takedown notice after HDMI Licensing Administrator filed a complaint against him.


    GitHub itself published details of the DMCA complaint which claims copyright over the documents and further states that they aren’t for public consumption.


    “HDMI Licensing Administrator, Inc. is the licensing Agent to the founders of the HDMI® Digital Interface. It has been brought to our attention that user Glenwing is publicly making confidential copyrighted content available on your hub without authorization,” the notice reads.


    Since we’ve seen these documents available freely online before, we contacted Glenwing to find out what the problem was.


    He told us that HDMI specification version 1.3a is available for public download from the HDMI website but considering copies of the other specifications can be found online elsewhere, he didn’t think there would be an issue putting them in one place.


    “I just assumed it was something considered unimportant to them, considering there have been other hosted copies of ‘confidential’ HDMI versions that were widely linked, easily locatable by simply Googling ‘HDMI 1.4 pdf’ etc,” he explains.


    “These documents have even been linked as a source on the HDMI Wikipedia page. You can’t get any more visible than that, and those copies remained online for years. But now that I’ve been revisiting my original sources I downloaded from, they’re mostly dead links. It seems HDMI Licensing may have started to clean house all over the web, not just targeting my page specifically.”


    Glenwing confirmed that all copies of the specifications he uploaded to Github were just obtained from various sources on the Internet, such as Wikipedia citations or simple Google searches.


    He’s clearly just a tech enthusiast with a great interest in the topic, who would like to share his knowledge with others. There’s certainly no malicious intent.


    “I never really intended these documents for distribution anyway, and if I could hide the Github page from Google results with a robots.txt file or something, I would,” he says.


    “I upload them primarily for my own reference, to have every version in one place, so that when I write guides trying to educate people about the capabilities of HDMI, DisplayPort, how to correctly calculate video bandwidth, how these standards have changed over time, etc., I can link these documents as sources.”


    Interestingly, this takedown wasn’t the first received by Glenwing. He initially received a notice just a few days earlier from the Consumer Technology Association (of which HDMI Licensing Administrator is a member) which targeted half a dozen CTA standards documents.


    “Six copyrighted CTA standards are posted in their entirety here:


    https://glenwing.github.io/docs/,” the notice from CTA reads. “[T]he works are not licensed under an open source license…the best solution is removal,” it adds.


    So are these documents sensitive too? Glenwing believes not.


    “This notice I actually received first, and it was a bit puzzling at the time; I had six CTA documents, which are all different revisions of the same (public) standard, CTA-861 [A DTV Profile for Uncompressed High Speed Digital Interfaces]. The three latest revisions (G, F, and E) are available for free download from the CTA website, the older revisions are not, likely because they are simply outdated, not because anyone considers them secret information,” he says.


    “It’s fairly common for standards organizations to only host the latest versions, and whenever a new revision is released, older versions often become difficult to find. That was sort of the point of my page, to preserve every version I could find for historical purposes.”


    In the absence of his own archive on Github, Glenwing then began to link directly to pages on the Consumer Technology Association site that host the documents and offer them for download. Functionally, access to the documents should have been the same. Or at least that was the plan.


    As this piece was being put together, CTA removed the copies of its own standards from its own website, leaving dead links in their place. It now appears that they can only be accessed via the CTA Store, albeit for the knockdown price of $0.00, following a registration process.


    Bizarrely, there are other sources for the documents, such as this site which offers to sell one of the publicly available documents for a mere $278.


    People shouldn’t have to pay a penny of course, as per a May 2018 press release from the CTA which declared free document access to all….

  10. #590
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Yesterday
    Posts
    4,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    ‘YouTube Content-ID Abusers Could Face Millions of Dollars in Damages’

    WatchMojo, one of the most viewed channels on YouTube, is striking back at Content-ID abusers. The channel is fed up with the numerous claims it has received against fair use content. Rightsholders can profit from this scheme but WatchMojo points out that they also expose themselves to potential legal action, where millions of dollars in damages are at stake.With over 20 million subscribers of its main channel and over 30 million over its entire network, WatchMojo is one of the largest players on YouTube.


    The Montreal-based video production company has been around for well over a decade and continues to expand its viewership, despite fierce competition.


    While WatchMojo owes a lot of its success to YouTube, the company is also growing increasingly frustrated with rampant copyright abuse on the platform. We’re not talking about people who steal their content, but about companies that unlawfully claim their videos.


    These complaints are far from new and we have highlighted these issues repeatedly over the years. However, when a channel the size of WatchMojo sounds the alarm bell, people should pay attention. This includes abusive rightsholders, which could be liable for millions of dollars in damages.


    But let’s start with the basis for the recent uproar. Last weekend WatchMojo’s CEO Ashkan Karbasfrooshan published a video in which he exposed some of the worst Content-ID abusers. The video provides several examples of companies that claimed WatchMojo content which, according to the channel, is protected under fair use.


    For example, when WatchMojo published a video commenting on an Avengers movie trailer, an outfit called Hexacorp (which does business as Orfium) claimed it, arguing that the trailer’s music was used without permission. Hexacorp represented Ramen Music, which licensed the track to Marvel, but apparently, WatchMojo wasn’t allowed to show it.


    WatchMojo disagreed and protested the claim citing fair use. After all, the trailer and music were clearly used for commentary purposes. This worked and Hexacorp eventually let the claim go, but many other channels with less legal knowledge simply accepted the claim, allowing Hexacorp to monetize their videos.


    What plays a major role here is that protesting Content-ID claims may eventually lead to copyright notices. These notices can result in “strikes” which can then cause people to lose all content in their YouTube channels. That’s not a risk many channels want to take.





    TorrentFreak spoke to WatchMojo’s CEO who informed us that this is just one of the many examples. Every month they receive hundreds of Content-ID claims across their channels. However, WatchMojo vigorously fights back and prevails on nearly every occasion.


    Karbasfrooshan notes that Content-ID abusers come in all shapes and sizes. Some stand out in terms of volume but are quick to let go of claims once a channel protests. Others send only a few complaints but protest when channels push back.


    While there’s no doubt that rightsholders should be able to pursue legitimate claims, WatchMojo believes that many see the system as a revenue-generating opportunity. They simply issue thousands of frivolous claims, knowing that many won’t be protested, even though there are clear arguments for fair use.


    This means that the rightsholders will scoop up extra revenue with very little expense. After all, most Content-ID claims are automated.


    In addition, WatchMojo also signals a possible anti-competitive angle. The channel receives a lot of strikes for content from the music company BMG.


    These, again, often target fair use videos and are sometimes issued globally, even though the rights can only be enforced in certain countries.


    The full expose is explained in detail in WatchMojo’s video, where Karbasfrooshan highlights that BMG’s parent company, Bertelsmann, also has a stake in ZergNet, which happens to be a direct competitor of WatchMojo on YouTube.


    “Bertelsmann, through their investment arm BMDI, has invested in our direct competitor ZergNet, whose assets Looper, Nicky Swift and a bunch of others compete with us for the same audience, fighting for the same ad dollars, competing for the same eyeballs,” WatchMojo’s CEO notes.


    Whether the behavior is anti-competitive or not, the overarching problem is that many rightsholders ‘abuse’ the Content-ID system, willingly or not.


    According to US case law, they are required to consider fair use when issuing takedown requests, something that doesn’t happen very often it seems.


    Content-ID is a voluntary system that’s not rooted in law. However, WatchMojo believes that abusive rightsholders are opening themselves up to millions of dollars in potential damages from YouTube channels. One way this could happen is through a class action lawsuit.


    Karbasfrooshan floated this idea in his initial video which triggered a lot of response from fellow channel operators. The basic idea is that a group of affected channels files a class action suit against an abusive rightsholder, with the goal of obtaining a settlement for unlawfully claimed and monetized videos.


    In a follow-up video, WatchMojo explains in detail how this would work. What is clear, is that the potential damages are massive. According to a calculation made by the channel, rightsholders earned over $2 billion through unlawfully claimed videos over the past several years.


    Whether the calculations hold up or not, it is clear that companies that send out a lot of claims against fair use content could theoretically face substantial damages. This, of course, has to be backed up in court, but according to WatchMojo’s CEO, who has plenty of legal experience, it’s a viable option.


    “We are now actively exploring taking legal action against a couple of targets where we have built up a lot of evidence of wrongdoing, abuse, and received additional evidence from other channels too,” Karbasfrooshan tells TorrentFreak.


    For now, WatchMojo is not ready to serve as a representative plaintiff in a class action suit. It hopes that by highlighting the potential risks for copyright holders, the associated companies will do the right thing and properly consider fair use.


    WatchMojo has complained about Content-ID abuse for quite a while and it believes that some type of legal action against an abuser is inevitable. Whether that’s through a class action suit or not.


    “It’s a matter of time, if not us, someone will come along and sue and win big,” Karbasfrooshan tells us.


    WatchMojo’s CEO has spoken to lawyers who, once they were informed about what was going on, were also convinced that some type of legal action is inevitable.


    “I assure you that once I explained how Content-ID worked vs. copyright law, and then how rightsholders abused it, the general consensus was: ok, these rightsholders are going to get sued,” Karbasfrooshan says.


    “Now, whether that’s done via a class action suit or a direct lawsuit is a different matter. I think the former is interesting but the latter is practically more likely,” he adds.


    Still, Karbasfrooshan hopes that lawsuits are not needed to address this. Ideally, copyright holders should change the way they operate and respect fair use, he says.


    And there’s also a major role for YouTube here. They can make a simple change and whitelist channels that have good standing, so these are not harmed by frivolous claims.


    “The answer is simple: it’s time for a separate class of channels for those who use the platform in a professional manner,” Karbasfrooshan notes.


    The latter angle will be discussed in the third episode of WatchMojo’s four-part series on Content-ID abuse. In addition, the channel will also launch “The FU Show”, where it will break down and discuss fair use (FU) issues in regards to content claims.


    Needless to say, these videos are very informative, and there’s something in there for channel operators as well as copyright holders.


    TorrentFreak

  11. #591
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Yesterday
    Posts
    4,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    Tor Exit Node Operator Dodges Bullet in Piracy Lawsuit

    The operator of a Tor exit-node, who stands accused of downloading a pirated copy of the movie Dallas Buyers Club, has dodged a bullet. District Court Judge Michael Simon decided not to adopt a magistrate judge's recommendation that the man committed willful copyright infringement. As such, the accused pirate still has a chance to win the case.Tor is an anonymity tool and operating a relay or exit point basically means that the traffic of hundreds or thousands of users hit the Internet from your IP-address.


    When pirates use Tor, it will then appear as if the traffic comes from this connection. This can lead to liability issues as Oregon resident John Huszar found out the hard way.


    Back in 2015, the company behind the movie Dallas Buyers Club, which is known for its vigorous pursuit of online pirates, filed a federal lawsuit against the IP-address 173.11.1.241.


    A few months later, this complaint was amended to list “Integrity Computer Services” as the defendant. As part of the proceedings, the filmmakers served a request for admissions, asking the defendant to respond to several statements.


    This request remained unanswered, which turned out to be a crucial mistake. Not responding typically means that the court can assume the statements are true. In this case, it included an admission that Huszar unlawfully distributed a copy of Dallas Buyers Club, which seemingly opened the door to a substantial financial claim.


    That John Huszar later repeatedly denied that he personally downloaded a pirated copy of the film in follow-up proceedings was irrelevant, according to the filmmakers.


    Backed by the admission, Dallas Buyers Club proceeded to file a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to confirm that Huszar did indeed willfully commit copyright infringement.


    This issue went to U.S. Magistrate Judge John Acosta earlier this year who, in his report and recommendation, sided with the movie company.


    “The court finds the admissions resulting from Huszar’s failure to deny allegations in the operative complaint or respond to requests for admissions clearly establish Huszar willfully infringed on Dallas’s copyrighted material in violation of the Act,” Acosta wrote.


    In most cases, these recommendations are accepted by the district court judge. That was bad news for Huszar, as it would make him liable for thousands of dollars in potential damages.


    However, the order that came out this week shows that a previously overlooked issue turned the tables in favor of Huszar.


    United States District Judge Michael Simon reviewed the objections that were pointed out by the defense, which highlight a crucial issue. When the request for admissions was served back in 2016, Huszar was not named as a defendant.


    At the time the complaint listed his company Integrity Computer Services as the defendant. This was replaced by Huszar in an amended complaint a few months later. However, that meant that the request for admission (RFA) wasn’t directed at Huszar personally.


    “The only defendant in the case at that time was simply “Integrity Computer Services,” (no ‘a/k/a’) and that is the only defendant named in the First Amended Complaint,” Judge Simon writes in his order.


    “Huszar, therefore, was not the party served with the April 12, 2016 RFAs. The facts sought in those requests thus cannot be deemed admitted by Huszar for failure to respond, and the Court’s order finding such admission is withdrawn.”


    As such, the court decided not to adopt the report and recommendation.


    The procedural issue was missed by the defense initially, likely because Huszar was defending himself at the time, but the oversight has saved him for now.


    “It is a technical issue that no ‘pro-se’ would likely catch. But RFA’s can affect a case significantly as was clear from the Magistrate’s decision. This is the error we brought up to the District Court’s attention that led to the ruling in our favor,” Huszar’s attorney J. Curtis Edmondson informs TorrentFreak.


    While Huszar escapes a ruling of willful copyright infringement based on the admissions, the case is not over yet. The motion for summary judgment is now reverted back to Judge Acosta for consideration on the merits.


    Huszar’s cross-motion of non-infringement is still on the table. Among other things, Huszar has argued that the evidence gathering software used in this case is flawed and unreliable.


    Both sides are now allowed to submit supplement pleadings. Huszar ultimately hopes to prove that he is not guilty and have his legal bills paid. The filmmakers, on the other hand, plan to prove that the Tor exit node operator is guilty and demand damages.



    A copy of United States District Judge Michael Simon’s order is available here https://torrentfreak.com/images/huszar1.pdf


    TorrentFreak



  12. #592
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Yesterday
    Posts
    4,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    Former “Copyright Alert System” Portal Now Links to Mattress Review Site

    The 'six-strikes' Copyright Alert System was once praised as an excellent tool to address online piracy. Nonetheless, it was shut down two years ago.


    Today, the domain name of the Center for Copyright Information still exists, but it's now used to sell mattresses instead. While that's not going to do anything to stop piracy, it could have been much worse.In 2011, the MPAA and RIAA teamed up with several major U.S. Internet providers, announcing their plan to shift the norms and behavior of BitTorrent pirates.


    The parties launched the Center for Copyright Information and agreed on a system through which Internet account holders would be warned if their connections were used to download pirated content.


    The program allowed ISPs to take a variety of repressive measures, including bandwidth throttling and temporary Internet disconnections. The “voluntary” agreement was praised by the US Government and seen as a prime example for other countries.


    However, it didn’t last.


    Early 2017 the MPAA, RIAA, and several major US ISPs pulled the plug. The parties never explained in detail why the effort was halted but it was clearly not the ideal solution for all involved.


    This was good news for the people who were on the brink of being ‘punished’ by their ISPs after repeated notices. They could finally sleep easy again. That’s actually something the now-defunct Copyright Alert System website can help them with today.


    After the scheme was stopped, the ‘copyrightinformation.org’ website remained online for months, offering the public information on how to avoid copyright infringement notices and where to obtain legal content.


    That stopped eventually, and it now seems that the official domain has been taken over by a mattress review site.


    People who try to access the former Copyright Alert System website are now redirected to buymattress.net. Apparently, none of the parties involved was interested in renewing the domain registration.


    The mattress site gladly picked up this valuable domain which has thousands of backlinks all over the web, including some from reputable news sites. That’s generally good for search engine optimization purposes.


    Of course, a mattress site is not much of a problem for the RIAA and MPAA, but it seems like the anti-piracy groups dodged a bullet here.


    Imagine if the domain was picked up the likes of The Pirate Bay, a prominent pirate streaming site, or even a stream-ripping service? That would have been quite an embarrassment, to say the least.


    The MPAA is not completely unaware of this risk. After all, it still owns the TorrentSpy.com domain name, even though the website was shut down over a decade ago. Similarly, Isohunt.com and Hotfile.com are still under control of the Hollywood group, redirecting to MPAA.org.


    That said, it’s not completely unprecedented for piracy or anti-piracy related domain names to fall into the hands of third parties. The Department of Justice, for example, let go of several Megaupload related domains a few years ago.


    Most famously, back in 2007 The Pirate Bay took over IFPI.com, a domain name that was previously owned by the prominent music industry organization IFPI. The torrent site kept the acronym, but changed the meaning to “International Federation of Pirate Interests.”


    TorrentFreak

  13. #593
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Yesterday
    Posts
    4,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    Google “De-Indexes 832 Pirate Sites” From Australia Search Results

    Google has voluntarily agreed to remove 832 pirate sites from its search results after reaching a "voluntary" agreement with content owners and ISPs in Australia. That's according to Village Roadshow chief Graham Burke who described the move as "Google doing the right thing". The news appears to come with some caveats, however.


    Section 115a of Australia’s Copyright Act allows copyright holders to apply for court injunctions that compel local ISPs to block subscribers from accessing ‘pirate’ sites.


    Since it became active in 2015, the legislation has been used a number of times to block large numbers of mainly torrent and streaming platforms. However, such sites are often quick to adapt, deploying alternative domains, mirrors and proxies to undermine the blockades.


    While Google has nothing to do with these actions, it has been regularly criticized for allowing users to carry out searches which enable them to find these workarounds. That has provoked harsh criticism from rightsholders, in particular Village Roadshow chief Graham Burke.


    To tackle this and other loopholes, in November 2018 Australia passed new legislation that allows rightsholders to expand blocks without having to go to court. It also compels search providers to remove links to sites detailed in court orders from their search results.


    While this framework is easily understood, this morning a report appeared in SMH declaring that peace has effectively broken out between rightsholders and Google.


    The latter has reportedly entered into a “voluntary agreement” to remove 832 “sites” currently blocked by ISPs from its search results, despite the court orders covering these locations not necessarily applying to Google.


    “This means we, as content owners, will be able to avoid the expense, effort, time and uncertainty of going to court,” Roadshow’s Burke said.


    “We’ve gone from being enemies to being allies … because I believe Google is doing the right thing by Australians,” he added.


    “[The] pirates’ business model is robbing and scamming people, they have sophisticated ways to take your information. Google has come down on the side that is right.”


    Burke’s praise for Google is somewhat of a surprise and the turnaround in his tone quite remarkable. Equally, Google entering into a voluntary agreement over a process it slammed last year also raises eyebrows.


    In particular, Google opposed any process that didn’t have the “direct oversight of the Federal Court” while noting that “there is no utility in extending site blocking schemes beyond ISPs to other online service providers.”


    TorrentFreak contacted Google for additional detail last evening and it provided the following statement.


    “Google supports effective industry led measures to fight piracy, and we invest significantly in the technology, tools and resources that prevent copyright infringement on our platforms,” a spokesperson said.


    Google is clearly reluctant to put any additional meat on the bones of this “voluntary agreement” but TorrentFreak has learned that this scheme only affects Australia and is directly linked to the new legislation passed last year.


    It seems possible then that this mass de-indexing of pirate resources represents a game of catch-up.


    A large proportion of existing pirate sites are already blocked under existing court orders that were granted under earlier legislation that didn’t require search engine de-indexing. It therefore seems likely that in order to have Google remove the sites from its results, copyright holders would have to return to court.


    For 832 sites (832 domains seems more realistic) this would be a time-consuming exercise and one with a guaranteed outcome. It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that the parties agreed to save time and money by cutting out the middle man and conceding to the inevitable.


    Burke suggests the de-indexing has already taken place so TF carried out some tests using various sites, including the most obvious blocking and de-indexing target (ThePirateBay.org) to see the effects.


    First, we used two Australian IP addresses (one in Melbourne, the other in Sydney) to access Google.com. We then searched for The Pirate Bay, which appeared as the top result each time.


    We then switched to Google.com.au and tested again with same IP addresses but ThePirateBay.org appeared as the top result again.


    We presented Google with these results and asked if it could explain the precise parameters of its de-indexing so we could report more accurately.


    The company declined to comment but it’s possible that not all de-indexing operations have been carried out yet. It’s also possible that only users of the ISPs specifically listed in the original court orders are affected, such as those using Telstra, Optus, Vocus, TPG, and Vodafone, plus subsidiaries.


    TorrentFreak

  14. #594
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Yesterday
    Posts
    4,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week on BitTorrent – 05/13/19

    The top 10 most downloaded movies on BitTorrent are in again. 'Avengers: Endgame' tops the chart this week, followed by ‘Cold Pursuit'. 'Shazam!' completes the top three.This week we have three newcomers in our chart.


    Avengers: Endgame is the most downloaded movie.


    The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are Web-DL/Webrip/HDRip/BDrip/DVDrip unless stated otherwise.


    This week’s most downloaded movies are:


    Movie Rank Rank last week Movie name IMDb Rating / Trailer
    1 (1) Avengers: Endgame (HDCam) 9.1 / trailer
    2 (2) Cold Pursuit 6.4 / trailer
    3 (…) Shazam! (Subbed HDRip) 7.5 / trailer
    4 (3) Glass 6.9 / trailer
    5 (4) Aquaman 7.7 / trailer
    6 (…) Pet Sematary 6.1 / trailer
    7 (6) Avengers: Infinity War 8.5 / trailer
    8 (8) Captain Marvel (HDTS) 7.2 / trailer
    9 (…) Iron Sky: The Coming Race 5.2 / trailer
    10 (10) How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World 7.8 / trailer


    Most downloaded movies via torrents


    TorrentFreak






  15. #595
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Yesterday
    Posts
    4,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    Judge: Number of ‘Unprovable’ Piracy Cases is Alarmingly High.




    Copyright-trolling outfit Strike 3 has suffered a severe blow in a New York federal court. U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein has thrown out over a dozen cases, signaling a variety of problems. Among other things, the Judge noted that the frequency of improperly accused pirates, more than one in three, is alarmingly high.


    By filing thousands of lawsuits over the past two years, Strike 3 Holdings swiftly became one of the most active copyright litigants in the U.S.

    These cases target people whose Internet connections were allegedly used to download and share copyright infringing content via BitTorrent. In the case of Strike 3, that’s adult content.

    As is common in these lawsuits, Strike 3 only knows the defendant by an IP-address. It then asks the courts to grant a subpoena, allowing it to ask Internet providers for the personal details of the alleged offenders so it can send a settlement request.

    There has been some pushback against these requests in certain courts. In the Eastern District of New York, for example, U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein slammed on the brakes recently

    Judge Orenstein denied motions for expedited discovery in thirteen cases. This means that the adult video company can’t get a subpoena to identify the alleged pirates. While we have incidentally seen similar decisions, the motivation, in this case, is worth highlighting.


    In his order, the Judge writes that allowing Strike 3 to obtain the identities of the account holders creates a risk.

    Specifically, it will put Strike 3 “in a position to effectively coerce the identified subscribers into paying thousands of dollars to settle claims that may or may not have merit, so as to avoid either the cost of litigation or the embarrassment of being sued for using unlawful means to view adult material.”

    Strike 3 was willing to give the Court assurances by accepting procedural safeguards on how the subpoenaed information can be used. However, considering the company’s history of avoiding judicial oversight, Judge Orenstein prefers not to issue any subpoenas at all.

    And there are more factors at play here. The order mentions that, if subpoenas are issued, it’s likely that Strike 3 will not use the account holders’ details to litigate these cases in court. That’s also backed up by the information the rightsholder shared with the Court.

    Since 2017, Strike 3 has filed 276 cases in the district, but zero have gone to trial.

    Of the 143 cases that were resolved in the district, 49 resulted in a settlement and 94 were voluntarily dismissed. The latter number includes 50 cases where Strike 3 wasn’t confident that the defendant is the infringer. In other words, people who are likely wrongfully accused.


    This means that in one-third of the resolved cases, Strike 3 has likely targeted the wrong person. This number is “alarmingly high,” according to the Magistrate Judge.

    “Strike 3 acknowledges that in many cases, the ‘Doe’ it has sued – that is, the subscriber – will prove to be someone other than the person who engaged in the allegedly unlawful conduct the Complaint describes,” the order reads.

    “And as it has now revealed in response to my inquiry, the proportion of such unprovable cases is alarmingly high,” Judge Orenstein adds.

    This means that Strike 3 is listing many people as Doe defendants, while it knows that quite a few of these are not the actual infringers.

    “It is thus apparent that Strike 3 is deliberately asserting claims in a scattershot fashion against a broad array of individuals simply because it is confident that many of them will be liable – even if almost as many of them are not,” the order reads.

    This seems to contradict the requirement that copyright holders should have good faith belief in the merit of their claim. While that’s not a violation of the federal rules per se, the Judge sees it as a reason not to issue the subpoenas.

    After all, it is clear that these type of lawsuits are also targeting innocent subscribers.

    “While I do not suggest that suing three people because two of them probably committed a provable copyright violation is a technical violation of Rule 11, the certainty that such an approach will impose needless burdens on innocent individuals counsels against a finding of good cause to permit expedited discovery,” the order reads.

    Strike 3 also argued that these type of lawsuits are needed to deter others from engaging in copyright infringement. However, the court waved away this argument as well.

    Similarly, Judge Orenstein disagrees with Strike 3’s argument that it will be unable to enforce its copyrights if a subpoena is not granted. While this concern is valid, the Judge believes that these types of cases are not the answer, as they are plainly inefficient.

    With the latter comment, the order references the work of Idaho Law Professor Annemarie Bridy, who previously published a paper explaining that litigation is not a scalable mechanism to deal with this type of copyright infringement.

    In summary, the order delivers a devastating blow to Strike 3 and adds to the recent criticism of these types of lawsuits. If all judges ruled the same way, so-called copyright trolling practice would be finished. However, that’s not the case just yet.


  16. #596
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Yesterday
    Posts
    4,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    US Govt. Seizes Millions in Cash & Crypto in Movie Piracy Case

    [I]The United States Government has seized millions in cash and cryptocurrency as part of a movie and TV show piracy investigation carried out by Homeland Security Investigations and the MPAA. PayPal appears to have played an early key role by providing information on two subscription-based 'pirate' sites. From there, the rabbit hole deepened.

    Significant legal action against alleged operators of pirate sites have traditionally been carried out with great fanfare.

    However, a case underway in federal court in Oregon is a very different beast, particularly given its scale and form.

    The case filed in the district court May 6, 2019, reveals the United States government seeking forfeiture of around $4 million dollars worth of cash and cryptocurrency seized on the basis that the owner of the property was involved in a conspiracy to commit copyright infringement and money laundering.

    The investigation reportedly began in October 2013 when Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agents received information from PayPal concerning two websites, Noobroom.com and Noobroom7.com, that allowed subscribers to stream movies and TV shows.

    HSI reported these sites to the MPAA which conducted an investigation, concluding that the sites and associated domains Noobroom and Noobroom9 distributed works in breach of its members’ copyrights. Revenue was reportedly generated by subscriptions processed through Stripe and via adverts placed by a company called Lanista Concepts.

    In July 2014, the MPAA sent a cease-and-desist notice to Noobroom. Five days later a covert Noobroom user account operated by the Hollywood group received a message advising users that their accounts had been moved to a new website at SuperChillin.com.

    After downloading movies from SuperChillin, the MPAA was able to link an IP address to an individual identified as Talon White. The suspect was subsequently linked to two additional sites – movietv.co and Sit2Play.com – which were deemed to be near identical copies of each other. The registrant of Sit2Play was listed as Talon White and an associated email address was determined as belonging to him.

    HSI’s investigation continued from 2016 to November 2018 when search and seizure warrants were executed. A declaration by Keith Druffel, a Special Agent of the Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigations, reads as follows;

    “Based on financial records obtained during the investigation, I determined that White received substantial revenue from the above-listed websites,” Druffel writes.

    “In 2018, he was averaging revenue over $500,000 per month. In 2017, White received over $2.2 million. In 2016, White received over $1 million in revenue, and in 2014 and 2015, White received on average about $400,000 a year in revenue.”

    According to Druffel, subscribers of the sites paid via PayPal or Stripe, payments that were deposited into bank accounts controlled by White. Information provided by Stripe matched White’s personal information and the account was labeled as “Selling stock tip subscriptions via email.” The IRS claims there is no evidence of any such sales.

    78,985 payments of $9.99 were received into the Stripe account between October 2015 and December 2016, amounting to $789,060. A further 7,611 payments of $25.49 ($194,004.39) and 5,348 payments of $44.99 ($240,606.52) made a grand total of $1,223,671.24.

    “The above-listed amounts correspond to the listed subscription costs on Sit2Play and Movietv. Therefore, I believe the payments received by Stripe are the subscription fees for the websites,” Druffel adds.

    Further analysis of transactions on White’s Stripe account dated between October 2017 and September 2018 revealed a further 396,843 payments of between $9.99 and $44.99 to a value of $6,373,816.57.

    “The above listed amounts correspond to the cost of subscriptions to the websites and represent proceeds from the violation of 18 USC § 2319, Criminal Copyright Infringement,” the statement reads.

    The investigation found that through August 2018, more than $3m was transferred from the Stripe account to a Wells Fargo account in White’s name and a JP Morgan Chase account held in the name of Viral Sensations, Inc. (VSI), a Nevada entity.

    White is alleged to have opened three checking accounts in the name of VSI, over which he had sole signature authority. Through August 31, 2019, one VSI account received payments of more than $5.9 million. The accounts were linked to White and subscriptions from the pirate sites. Funds from one of the Chase accounts were used to buy $1m in cryptocurrency through virtual currency exchange Coinbase.

    On November 13, 2018, Mustafa Kasubhai, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Oregon, approved a search and seizure warrant authorizing a search of White’s residence and seizure of various assets. The warrant was executed two days later, yielding the following;


    • $2,457,790.72 seized from JPMorgan Chase Bank account #1
    • $1,266,650.00 seized from JPMorgan Chase Bank account #2
    • $1,383.68 seized from JPMorgan Chase Bank account #3
    • $200,653.71 seized from JPMorgan Chase Bank account #4
    • $32,921.00 seized in US currency (cash)
    • $1,940.77 seized in US currency (Stripe account)
    • 31.53810677 in BTC (Coinbase account)
    • 1,022.39066800 in ETH (Coinbase account)
    • 5.74017141 in BCH (Coinbase account)


    have probable cause to believe, and I do believe, that White and others known and unknown were involved in a conspiracy to commit copyright infringement and money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957 and 2319 from at least 2013 through November 2018,” Druffel’s statement adds.

    On May 7, 2019, District Judge Anna J. Brown issued an order to the IRS to hold the assets until further notice.

    “You are hereby commanded to arrest and take into your possession until further order of the Court, defendants,
    in rem, Assorted Funds,” the Judge wrote.

    https://torrentfreak.com/images/image-31.png

    From a copyright infringement perspective, this case is pretty unusual.

    Most civil and criminal cases against pirate sites and their operators involve detailed descriptions of their workings along with finely-tuned claims of various types of infringement. But the focus here appears to be a financial one, for now at least.

    A
    report from Koin.com suggests that the man hasn’t been charged with a crime yet. In an effort to find ou more, TF approached White’s lawyer Rain Minns. At the time of publication we were yet to receive a response.



    Torrentfreak.com

  17. #597
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Yesterday
    Posts
    4,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    Namecheap Must Identify Nofile.io Registrant Following Piracy Complaint

    File-hosting service Nofile.io suffered some downtime recently. The outage coincided with a subpoena obtained by the RIAA a few days ago, which requires Namecheap to expose the domain registrant. The reason for the RIAA's inquiry is a recent leak of a track from rapper 'Tyler, the Creator.'

    There are hundreds of file-hosting services on the Internet, each with their own strengths and weaknesses.

    Nofile is generally known as a no-nonsense service that’s free to everyone. The site launched two years ago and has been building a steady userbase ever since.

    Recently, however, the site suddenly stopped working (it came back just hours ago). Checking the domain records revealed that the NS records had been removed, which made it impossible to access the site. The question was, why?

    A search through U.S. court records provided some possibly relevant context. It revealed that the music industry group RIAA targeted the site through a DMCA subpoena, directed at Nofile’s domain name registrar Namecheap.

    The RIAA requested the subpoena at a federal court in Columbia, which was swiftly signed off by a clerk. The paperwork includes a letter addressed to Namecheap, in which the music group demands detailed information on the customer associated with the file-hosting service’s domain.

    “We have determined that a user of your system or network has infringed our member record companies’ copyrighted sound recordings,” the RIAA’s letter reads.

    “The website associated with this domain name offers files containing sound recordings which are owned by one or more of our member companies and have not been authorized for this kind of use, including without limitation those referenced at the URL below.”

    The URL in question is not just some random piece of music. It points to the upload of a leaked track by rapper ‘Tyler, the Creator,’ titled ‘Earfquake.’

    The track has been circulating online for roughly a week. It was uploaded to hosting services such as Nofile.io and shared online through Leakth.is, 4Chan, Reddit, and other platforms. Whether Nofile.io played a significant role in the distribution is unknown, but it could be the site where it first appeared.


    In any case, the RIAA would like to find out who’s running the site. The music group requests all electronic information that may help to identify the account holder, including IP-addresses, email, and payment information.

    “As is stated in the attached subpoena, you are required to disclose to the RIAA information sufficient to identify the infringer. This would include the individual’s name, physical address, IP address, telephone number, e-mail address, payment information, account updates and account history,” the RIAA writes.


    The DMCA subpoena
    Shortly after the subpoena was granted Nofile.io became unreachable. When we started writing this article it was still offline but just before publication, it returned. The leaked file the RIAA referenced is still hosted there as well.


    Earfquake
    Interestingly, this is the second DMCA subpoena the RIAA has obtained in a short period of time. Little over a week ago we reported that the group is also going after several ‘pirate’ sites that use Cloudflare.

    Both requests use boilerplate language and only require a clerk’s signature to become enforceable. This makes it a rather cheap and effective option to find out more about site owners so it would be no surprise if we see these more often going forward.

    Whether it’s the RIAA’s main goal to shut down the site is questionable though. In this case, the music group will likely be more interested in finding out who uploaded the leaked file, if that’s the source.


  18. #598
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Yesterday
    Posts
    4,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    Namecheap Must Identify Nofile.io Registrant Following Piracy Complaint

    File-hosting service Nofile.io suffered some downtime recently. The outage coincided with a subpoena obtained by the RIAA a few days ago, which requires Namecheap to expose the domain registrant. The reason for the RIAA's inquiry is a recent leak of a track from rapper 'Tyler, the Creator.'

    There are hundreds of file-hosting services on the Internet, each with their own strengths and weaknesses.

    Nofile is generally known as a no-nonsense service that’s free to everyone. The site launched two years ago and has been building a steady userbase ever since.

    Recently, however, the site suddenly stopped working (it came back just hours ago). Checking the domain records revealed that the NS records had been removed, which made it impossible to access the site. The question was, why?

    A search through U.S. court records provided some possibly relevant context. It revealed that the music industry group RIAA targeted the site through a DMCA subpoena, directed at Nofile’s domain name registrar Namecheap.

    The RIAA requested the subpoena at a federal court in Columbia, which was swiftly signed off by a clerk. The paperwork includes a letter addressed to Namecheap, in which the music group demands detailed information on the customer associated with the file-hosting service’s domain.

    “We have determined that a user of your system or network has infringed our member record companies’ copyrighted sound recordings,” the RIAA’s letter reads.

    “The website associated with this domain name offers files containing sound recordings which are owned by one or more of our member companies and have not been authorized for this kind of use, including without limitation those referenced at the URL below.”

    The URL in question is not just some random piece of music. It points to the upload of a leaked track by rapper ‘Tyler, the Creator,’ titled ‘Earfquake.’

    The track has been circulating online for roughly a week. It was uploaded to hosting services such as Nofile.io and shared online through Leakth.is, 4Chan, Reddit, and other platforms. Whether Nofile.io played a significant role in the distribution is unknown, but it could be the site where it first appeared.


    In any case, the RIAA would like to find out who’s running the site. The music group requests all electronic information that may help to identify the account holder, including IP-addresses, email, and payment information.

    “As is stated in the attached subpoena, you are required to disclose to the RIAA information sufficient to identify the infringer. This would include the individual’s name, physical address, IP address, telephone number, e-mail address, payment information, account updates and account history,” the RIAA writes.


    The DMCA subpoena
    Shortly after the subpoena was granted Nofile.io became unreachable. When we started writing this article it was still offline but just before publication, it returned. The leaked file the RIAA referenced is still hosted there as well.


    Earfquake
    Interestingly, this is the second DMCA subpoena the RIAA has obtained in a short period of time. Little over a week ago we reported that the group is also going after several ‘pirate’ sites that use Cloudflare.

    Both requests use boilerplate language and only require a clerk’s signature to become enforceable. This makes it a rather cheap and effective option to find out more about site owners so it would be no surprise if we see these more often going forward.

    Whether it’s the RIAA’s main goal to shut down the site is questionable though. In this case, the music group will likely be more interested in finding out who uploaded the leaked file, if that’s the source.


  19. #599
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Yesterday
    Posts
    4,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    RIAA Obtains Subpoena to Unmask YouTube-Ripping Site Operator

    The RIAA is attempting to unmask the operator of YouTube ripping site YouTubNow. The popular platform receives around 15 million visits per month but now stands accused of infringing RIAA members' copyrights by offering content by Gloria Estefan, Robert Palmer and Nu Shooz, among others.

    Stream-ripping tools have become a big deal for the music industry over the past several years.

    Instead of having to revisit platforms like YouTube, Spotify or Deezer, users of ripping tools or sites are able to download content to their own machines. The labels argue this deprives artists and indeed platforms of revenue while breaching music licensing conditions.

    Perhaps the biggest problem is presented by sites that allow people to rip content from YouTube, whether that’s video or audio, or audio alone. While this can be for legitimate purposes, millions use stream-ripping platforms to obtain copyrighted content for free.

    One such site is YouTube-ripping service
    YouTubNow.com. According to SimilarWeb stats, the site currently receives around 15 million visits per month, with the highest share of its visitors hailing from the U.S.

    “YouTubNow is a powerful service that allows you to find and download your favorite YouTube videos as well as music tracks quickly, easily and absolutely for free,” the site’s promo material reads.

    “It’s an excellent YouTube to MP3 downloader as it makes any soundtrack a separate audio file tailored especially for you!”

    This clearly isn’t something the RIAA appreciates. The music industry group targeted YouTubNow last week via a DMCA subpoena directed at the site’s domain name registrar, NameCheap.

    In common with a similar process aimed at file-hosting platform NoFile and first reported
    here on TF, the RIAA filed its request at a federal court in Columbia, demanding that NameCheap hands over the personal details of its client. The Court was happy to oblige.

    “We believe your service is hosting [YouTubNow.com] on its network,” a subsequent RIAA letter to NameCheap reads.

    “The website associated with this domain name offers files containing sound recordings which are owned by one or more of our member companies and have not been authorized for this kind of use, including without limitation those referenced at the URL below.”

    The allegedly-infringing URLS

    https://torrentfreak.com/images/image-32.png

    It isn’t clear whether the RIAA has already filed any DMCA takedown notices with YouTubNow via the email address published on the site. Nevertheless, from the ‘copyright notice’ published on the site itself, YouTubNow claims no responsibility for what users do with the service.

    At users’ own risk….

    https://torrentfreak.com/images/youtubnow.png

    From the wording of the letter sent to NameCheap and the subpoena itself, the RIAA appears more concerned about the entire YouTubNow service, rather than just a few seemingly random URLs.

    “The purpose for which this subpoena is sought is to obtain the identity of the individual assigned to this website who has induced the infringement of, and has directly engaged in the infringement of, our members’ copyrighted sound recordings without their authorization,” the RIAA writes.

    In addition to demanding the operator’s name, physical address, IP address, telephone number, email address, payment information, account updates and account history, the RIAA suggests a termination of the service’s domain might also be in order.

    “We also ask that you consider the widespread and repeated infringing nature of the site operator(s)’ conduct, and whether the site(s)’ activities violate your terms of service and/or your company’s repeat infringer policy,” the RIAA writes.

    This is at least the third DMCA subpoena the RIAA has obtained against allegedly-infringing sites in recent weeks. TF previously
    reported that the group is targeting several ‘pirate’ sites that use Cloudflare and file-hosting platform NoFile..

    Torrentfreak.com

  20. #600
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Yesterday
    Posts
    4,931
    Post Thanks / Like
    Supreme Court Refuses Eminem Publisher’s Case Over Copyright Damages

    The legal battle between Eminem's publisher and New Zealand's National Party will not go to the Supreme Court. While it is clear that the political party's use of an Eminem knockoff track wasn't permitted, the Court doesn't believe the publisher's appeal to increase the $225,000 damages award is warranted.

    While Kim Dotcom remains embroiled in the largest copyright battle New Zealand has ever seen, the country’s National Party has been facing ‘infringement’ problems of its own.

    In 2014 Eminem’s publisher took the National Party
    to court over alleged copyright infringement of the rapper’s track ‘Lose Yourself’ in an election campaign video.

    At the time, the party was led by then Prime Minister of New Zealand John Key, who’s seen as Dotcom’s nemesis. In common with the Megaupload case, the dispute between the National Party and Eminem’s publisher continued to drag on.

    The National Party didn’t simply use the track without paying for it. They actually sought professional advice before starting the campaign and licensed a track called Eminem Esque, which is the one they used in the ad.

    The party hoped to avoid more expensive licensing fees by using the knock-off song, but the High Court previously ruled that the similarities between Lose Yourself and Eminem Esque are so significant that it breached copyright.

    In 2017 the Court ordered the National Party to
    pay $600,000 for the copyright infringement, an amount neither side was satisfied with. In a subsequent ruling a year later, the Court of Appeal sided with the National Party, reducing the damages to $225,000.

    Eminem’s publisher, Eight Mile Style, wasn’t pleased with the outcome and asked the Supreme Court to take it on.

    During a hearing two weeks ago the publisher’s lawyer, Gary Williams, told the Court that the damages amount was too low. The rightsholders would have demanded a premium for the song, especially since it was used for political advertising,
    he argued before the court.

    This week the New Zealand Supreme Court decided that it will not allow the appeal, Stuff
    reports. There is no doubt that the National Party’s use of the track was not permitted, but the Court doesn’t believe an extended legal fight over the damages amount is warranted.

    “Given the concurrent findings of fact in the courts below rejecting the contention that the National Party turned a blind eye to the risk of infringement or was reckless, we do not see sufficient prospect of success in an argument that additional damages should have been awarded in this case to justify the grant of leave for a further appeal,” the Court wrote.

    This effectively ends the legal battle after five years. The National Party will be happy to move on from this copyright infringement row. For Kim Dotcom, however, the battle continues.



    Torrentfreak.com

Page 30 of 33 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Shinning | TSH | General | News Thread
    By Amias in forum BitTorrent News
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: Yesterday, 11:36 PM
  2. ScanBytes | SCB | General | News Thread
    By Amias in forum BitTorrent News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 17-05-2019, 02:10 AM
  3. TorrentLeech | TL | General | News Thread
    By Amias in forum BitTorrent News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-04-2019, 08:39 PM
  4. Lesaloonv2.0 | LS | General | News Thread
    By Amias in forum BitTorrent News
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 26-01-2019, 05:40 PM
  5. HeBits | HB | General | News Thread
    By Amias in forum BitTorrent News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-10-2018, 02:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •