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


Page 8 of 28 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 553
  1. #141
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Today
    Posts
    4,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    Google’s Anti-Piracy Efforts Pass IPO’s Test With Flying Colors

    Today, Google released a report of its latest progress on the anti-piracy front. Among other things, it stresses that pirate site demotion in search results has helped the company to stay well within the thresholds agreed with the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO), which are part of the voluntary deal with UK rightsholders.

    The entertainment industries have repeatedly accused Google of not doing enough to limit piracy while demanding tougher action.

    For its part, Google regularly publishes updates on the extensive measures it takes to limit piracy on its platforms.

    The company has today released the latest iteration of its “How Google Fights Piracy” report. It highlights how the company generates billions in revenue for the entertainment industries while at the same time takes measures to counter copyright infringement.

    The company explains that its anti-piracy efforts are guided by five principles, starting with more and better legal alternatives.

    “Piracy often arises when consumer demand goes unmet by legitimate supply. The best way to battle piracy is with better, more convenient, legitimate alternatives to piracy, which can do far more than attempts at enforcement can,” Google writes.

    The other principles include a “follow-the-money” approach, effective and scalable anti-piracy solutions, protection against abuse such as fabricated copyright infringement allegations, and transparency.

    A large portion of the report describes Google’s policies and results regarding web search. The company stresses that it doesn’t want to link to any pirated content, but that it relies on copyright holders to pinpoint these URLs.

    “Google does not want to include links to infringing material in our search results, and we make significant efforts to prevent infringing webpages from appearing,” the company writes.

    “The heart of those efforts is cooperation with creators and rightsholders to identify and remove results that link to infringing content and to present legitimate alternatives.”

    Aside from removing more than three billion URLs in recent years, the search engine also helps to promote legal alternatives. This includes “knowledge cards” (which, incidentally,
    have featured pirate links too), as well as offering copyright holders SEO advice.

    Earlier this year we reported that the number of takedown notices was
    starting to decrease for the first time in years, and Google confirms that observation in its report.

    “The number of URLs listed in takedown requests decreased by 9%, reversing a long-term trend where the number of URLs requested for removal increased year-over-year,” the company writes.

    Last year, Google was asked to remove 882 million URLs in total, of which 95% were removed. In addition, more than
    65,000 sites that were flagged persistently have been demoted in search results, lowering their visibility.

    This demotion measure is “extremely effective” according to the search giant.

    “Immediately upon launching improvements to our demotion signal in 2014, one major torrent site acknowledged traffic from search engines had dropped by 50% within the first week,” Google notes, citing
    a TorrentFreak report.

    Perhaps more importantly, Google’s demotion measures also passed the tests that were carried out under the
    Voluntary Code of Practice that Google entered into alongside Microsoft and major UK rightsholder organizations.

    This agreement was signaled by the rightsholders as a landmark deal and, reportedly, Google is doing well.

    Thus far, four rounds of tests have been carried out to check whether search engines sufficiently limit the availability of infringing content. These are based on guidelines set by the UK’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO). Google passed them all.

    “Thanks to the demotion signal and our other efforts to surface legitimate results in response to media-related queries, Google Search has passed the test every time with flying colors — scoring considerably under the thresholds agreed with the IPO,” Google reveals.

    This suggests that the search engine doesn’t have much to fear from the UK Government, which previously warned that “legislative” measures could follow if search engines didn’t step up their game.

    While Google says that it’s doing its best, the company is convinced that search is not a major driver to pirate sites and stresses that they don’t control what is on the web.

    The company reiterates its earlier position that removing entire domains from search results is unacceptable, as that would restrict access to legitimate content as well. Similarly, “filtering” the entire web for pirated content is not an option either.

    “It is a myth that Google could create a tool to filter the web for allegedly infringing material and remove images, video, and text from our search results proactively. Such a system is both infeasible and unnecessary,” Google writes.

    Aside from search, Google has also removed content from its other services including YouTube, Google Drive, and Google images. Some of these services were
    extensively abused by streaming sites last year, but Google says it has taken steps to counter this.

    Finally, no anti-piracy report these days would be complete without a Kodi mention. The streaming software, which is perfectly legal in its own right, is regularly used in combination with third-party piracy add-ons.

    Google, which banned the term Kodi
    from its auto-complete feature, says it removed several set-top boxes with “suspicious” add-ons from Google Shopping. In addition, the Play Store is closely monitored to flag apps with pre-installed pirate Kodi add-ons before they appear online.

    In closing, Google notes that it remains committed to fighting piracy on all fronts, albeit not at all costs.

    “Through continued innovation and partnership, we’re committed to rolling back bad actors while empowering the creative communities who make everything we love about the internet today.”




    Source: Torrentfreak.com

  2. #142
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Today
    Posts
    4,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    Denuvo Cites Huge ‘Losses’ For AAA Game Not Using its Anti-Piracy Tech

    Anti-piracy outfit Denuvo has published figures that suggest huge 'losses' for games not using its anti-tamper technology. The company says that an unnamed AAA sports title was downloaded more than 355,000 times by BitTorrent users in its first two weeks online, with 12% of those shares happening in the first day. A fortnight of protection, it now suggests, is Denuvo's window of opportunity.

    Ever since computer and video games have been available to the masses, players have been able to pirate them. From the early days of cassettes and floppy disks to today’s digital downloads, games are pirated as quickly as pirates can manage.

    Over the years, dozens of anti-piracy mechanisms have attempted to stem the tide, with one thing in common – all have eventually failed to prevent piracy. With billions in revenue at stake, it’s a huge and competitive market that games companies wish to protect.

    In recent years, one particular product has found itself on the frontlines. Denuvo’s anti-tamper technology protects perhaps the most vulnerable of titles – PC games – and for the longest time managed to thwart even the most competent of games ‘crackers’

    However, in recent years, the technology has been under attack, mainly because of its deployment on the world’s most popular games but partially because the technology presents such a challenge to those attempting to circumvent it. Slowly but surely, the unstoppable Denuvo has proven to be fallible, with several cracking groups unpicking its digital locks.

    With the period of Denuvo protection diminishing from many, many months down to a few days in some cases, the company has attempted to position itself not as invulnerable, but the people to turn to if protecting early sales are important. And, according to a new statement by the company, they are very important indeed.

    In a statement issued by Denuvo owner Irdeto (the
    latter acquired the former earlier this year), the company states that it tracked pirate downloads of an unnamed ‘AAA’ (big budget, major studio) title during the first few days after its release. Without Denuvo protection it was quickly cracked and made available on P2P networks and from there, pirates did their thing.

    “Irdeto tracked the downloads of a major sports title on P2P networks after the title, which did not include anti-tamper protection, was cracked on the same day of its release,” the company says.

    “During the first two weeks, Irdeto detected 355,664 torrent downloads of the illegal copy of the title. Given the retail price of the game, this puts the total potential loss of revenue from P2P downloads at $21,336,283.”

    Irdeto highlights the first 14 days following release as the most critical for such a game, claiming that up to 80% of sales take place during the period. An impressive 50% of those sales take place within the first four days, the company adds.

    It’s worth noting that while Denuvo games are often cracked very quickly, it’s definitely not uncommon for protection to stand up to the first two weeks of attacks. Denuvo can usually hold off crackers for the first four days, so these figures are obvious marketing tools for a technology that has been somewhat diminished after various cracking groups began taking its challenge personally.

    But just in case Denuvo only manages a single day of protection, owner Irdeto suggests that the effort is worth it – even dropping down to the importance of standing firm for an hour.

    “The research also found that the first day of release alone is crucial for the protection of a AAA title, as 12% of the illegal P2P downloads occurred within the first day of the cracked copy appearing on the P2P networks (and a substantial number of these in the first hour),” the company adds.

    During the past couple of years, with many Denuvo-protected games finding themselves cracked within days and weeks, the company has positioned itself as a necessary speedbump, one that can make a difference straight after launch. With Denuvo limiting the above statistics to the first two weeks, there’s a suggestion that’s where its confidence lies.

    “Piracy is a threat that is firmly established in the games industry and, as our research suggests, it can result in potentially huge revenue losses for publishers if their games are compromised within the 14-day window following release,” said Reinhard Blaukovitsch, Managing Director of Denuvo, Irdeto.

    “With this in mind, it is crucial for publishers to implement security strategies that make their games as difficult as possible to crack and reverse engineer. This way they will be able to better protect the revenues that allow them to continue to create such compelling games.”

    While the challenge presented by Denuvo protection has never proven popular with pirates, many hoped that the technology would prove unpopular with developers and publishers too. However, as a sarcastic graphic posted by a Reddit
    user yesterday shows, there doesn’t appear to be much lack of uptake.

    New game contains Denuvo? We know…..


    https://torrentfreak.com/images/denuvo-aaa.png

    All that said, it appears that no variant of Denuvo is invulnerable. Even since the company managed to
    shut down Bulgarian cracker Voksiearlier this year, new and old players have been taking the company’s protection apart.

    According to a useful table published by
    /r/crackwatch, cracking group CODEX recently defeated the protection on Dragon Quest XI in 13 days while Soul Caliber 6 took them just four. (Note: There’s that four-day period mentioned by Irdeto above)

    A previously unheard of group ‘FCKDRM’ appeared on the scene in November, defeating Mega Man 11 in just over a month and Football Manager 2019 in just four days (there it is again). Notably, these two latter titles used Denuvo’s latest technology, labeled as 5.1 and 5.2.

    Source: Torrentfreak.com

  3. #143
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Today
    Posts
    4,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    Dutch Govt Agency Warns Against Fake ‘Piracy’ Fines

    The Dutch Government's Telecom Agency is alerting the public that its name is being abused by scammers to demand piracy fines. In a warning issued today, it recommends recipients not to respond to these emails. It appears that scammers are capitalizing on the news that rightsholders may soon start sending 'fines' to alleged pirates.

    It is no secret that copyright holders are monitoring unauthorized downloads around the world.

    In most cases this results in harmless takedown notices but increasingly, these warnings are triggering
    settlement demands or automated fines.

    Rightsholders in the Netherlands are planning similar action. Dutch Filmworks initially said it would send the first settlement demands
    last Autumn but a year later, this is yet to happen.

    Local anti-piracy group BREIN also
    announced a similar effort, targeting frequent seeders. This campaign isn’t live either.

    Considering the above, it came as a surprise when several people received emails demanding a ‘fine’ over alleged illegal downloading in recent days. The emails in question claim to be from the Dutch Government’s
    Telecom Agency (Agentschap Telecom), which carries some weight.

    The emails may look pretty legitimate, especially to people who are unfamiliar with these type of demands, but the Telecom Agency
    issued awarning today which explains that they are fake.

    “There appear to be fake emails in circulation that supposedly come from the Telecom Agency. These are fake e-mails regarding fines for illegal downloading of films. These are bogus e-mails. They are not from the Telecom Agency,” the warning notes.

    “Have you received such an e-mail? Do not respond to the message, do not click on any links and never leave your details behind.”

    It appears that the scammers are using the news that ‘fines’ will soon be sent out to alleged pirates to add legitimacy to their efforts. Interestingly, this isn’t the first time that this has happened.

    Last year we reported on a similar scheme where fake piracy fines were sent out, supposedly on behalf of Dutch Filmworks. This was a scam as well and the movie distributor advised recipients to throw the letters in the trash.

    “There is a fake letter in circulation. This letter is NOT sent by Dutch Filmworks. Do not pay and throw the letter away,” the movie Dutch Filmworks
    warned at the time.

    Being a Government agency, it’s unlikely that the Telecom Agency will ever send out piracy fines. These are more likely to come from rightsholders or their representatives.

    How far along BREIN and Dutch Filmworks are with their real ‘fine’ schemes remains unknown.

    Source: Torrentfreak.com

  4. #144
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Today
    Posts
    4,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    Publishing Giants Ask to Join Landmark Anti-Piracy Agreement

    A landmark anti-piracy agreement between rightsholders and technology companies in Russia might soon have a new signature. Major publishers have asked to join the scheme, which will see the creation of a centralized database of infringing content and rapid takedowns. Meanwhile, search giant Yandex might avoid a legal battle with TV companies after signing the document last week.

    Several Russian tech giants and media companies signed a landmark anti-piracy agreement last week. It’s designed to make infringing content less visible by sanitizing search results and rapidly removing content.

    The memorandum was signed by media companies Channel One, the National Media Group, Gazprom-Media, the Internet Video Association, and the Association of Film and Television Producers. Yandex, Rambler Group, Mail.Ru Group, vKontakte, and RuTube signed on the tech platform side.

    A centralized database, populated with links to sites that the entertainment industry groups claim are infringing their intellectual property, will be created in a matter of weeks. Search engines and hosting platforms will query the database every five minutes and remove infringing content with six hours.

    While the agreement had broad support, Russia’s publishing companies were not present during the initial signing. However, telecoms regular Roscomndazor indicated that other rightsholders and tech companies were welcome to join following a successful application.

    The publishers have now shown their hand in a letter from the Russian Book Union to Roscomnadzor head Alexander Zharov.

    “I ask you to assist in organizing the signing of a memorandum with the Internet Copyright Association [AZAPI] representing the interests of most major Russian publishing houses,” the letter
    reads.

    “Direct communications between the Internet Copyright Association (AZAPI) and Roskomnadzor will remove links from search engines issued on the basis of a constructive dialogue, without waiting for the adoption of the law to develop an optimal test model.

    The memorandum signed last week is valid until September 1, 2019. By then, the signatories expect new copyright legislation to be introduced, enshrining the terms of the memorandum in law.

    In recent months, Yandex, in particular, has been under increasing pressure to do something about the large amounts of pirate content appearing in search results. Early September, before the signing of the memorandum, the battle again moved to the legal system.

    In
    lawsuits filed with the Moscow City Court, Gazprom-Media outlets including TNT, TV-3, 2×2, complained that Yandex should “stop creating technical conditions that ensure the placement of [copyrighted] works on the Yandex.ru website.”

    While that matter is still pending, the agreement reached last week (Yandex and Gazprom-Media both signed) could mean that GazProm-Media withdraws its complaints against Yandex. Speaking with TASS, spokesperson Ekaterina Trofimova declined to rule out the possibility of peace breaking out before the trial, provisionally arranged for December 5, 2018.

    Meanwhile, the Russian
    IPChain Association, which earlier this year signed an agreement to digitize the patent archives of Kyrgyzstan using blockchain technology, has said it’s ready to provide a technological solution for the anti-piracy database detailed in the memorandum.

    “The main infrastructure solution for implementing the conditions of the memorandum is, of course, distributed registry technology,” said a letter penned by Maxim Proksh of the government-backed innovation group,
    Skolkovo Foundation.

    “Based on this technology, a number of projects have already been created that have passed the pilot stage and have been commercialized. This is how the IPChain intellectual property management system would work to provide a technological solution for the implementation of the memorandum.”

    Through the use of blockchain technology, it’s envisioned that trust will be built between companies like Yandex and Gazprom-Media.

    “It is important that the blockchain will create and cultivate an environment of trust between search engines and rightsholders. Flat registries in the form of tables are hopelessly outdated, both technologically and morally,” Proksh
    added.

    Source: Torrentfreak.com

  5. #145
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Today
    Posts
    4,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    Publishing Giants Ask to Join Landmark Anti-Piracy Agreement

    A landmark anti-piracy agreement between rightsholders and technology companies in Russia might soon have a new signature. Major publishers have asked to join the scheme, which will see the creation of a centralized database of infringing content and rapid takedowns. Meanwhile, search giant Yandex might avoid a legal battle with TV companies after signing the document last week.

    Several Russian tech giants and media companies signed a landmark anti-piracy agreement last week. It’s designed to make infringing content less visible by sanitizing search results and rapidly removing content.

    The memorandum was signed by media companies Channel One, the National Media Group, Gazprom-Media, the Internet Video Association, and the Association of Film and Television Producers. Yandex, Rambler Group, Mail.Ru Group, vKontakte, and RuTube signed on the tech platform side.

    A centralized database, populated with links to sites that the entertainment industry groups claim are infringing their intellectual property, will be created in a matter of weeks. Search engines and hosting platforms will query the database every five minutes and remove infringing content with six hours.

    While the agreement had broad support, Russia’s publishing companies were not present during the initial signing. However, telecoms regular Roscomndazor indicated that other rightsholders and tech companies were welcome to join following a successful application.

    The publishers have now shown their hand in a letter from the Russian Book Union to Roscomnadzor head Alexander Zharov.

    “I ask you to assist in organizing the signing of a memorandum with the Internet Copyright Association [AZAPI] representing the interests of most major Russian publishing houses,” the letter
    reads.

    “Direct communications between the Internet Copyright Association (AZAPI) and Roskomnadzor will remove links from search engines issued on the basis of a constructive dialogue, without waiting for the adoption of the law to develop an optimal test model.

    The memorandum signed last week is valid until September 1, 2019. By then, the signatories expect new copyright legislation to be introduced, enshrining the terms of the memorandum in law.

    In recent months, Yandex, in particular, has been under increasing pressure to do something about the large amounts of pirate content appearing in search results. Early September, before the signing of the memorandum, the battle again moved to the legal system.

    In
    lawsuits filed with the Moscow City Court, Gazprom-Media outlets including TNT, TV-3, 2×2, complained that Yandex should “stop creating technical conditions that ensure the placement of [copyrighted] works on the Yandex.ru website.”

    While that matter is still pending, the agreement reached last week (Yandex and Gazprom-Media both signed) could mean that GazProm-Media withdraws its complaints against Yandex. Speaking with TASS, spokesperson Ekaterina Trofimova declined to rule out the possibility of peace breaking out before the trial, provisionally arranged for December 5, 2018.

    Meanwhile, the Russian
    IPChain Association, which earlier this year signed an agreement to digitize the patent archives of Kyrgyzstan using blockchain technology, has said it’s ready to provide a technological solution for the anti-piracy database detailed in the memorandum.

    “The main infrastructure solution for implementing the conditions of the memorandum is, of course, distributed registry technology,” said a letter penned by Maxim Proksh of the government-backed innovation group,
    Skolkovo Foundation.

    “Based on this technology, a number of projects have already been created that have passed the pilot stage and have been commercialized. This is how the IPChain intellectual property management system would work to provide a technological solution for the implementation of the memorandum.”

    Through the use of blockchain technology, it’s envisioned that trust will be built between companies like Yandex and Gazprom-Media.

    “It is important that the blockchain will create and cultivate an environment of trust between search engines and rightsholders. Flat registries in the form of tables are hopelessly outdated, both technologically and morally,” Proksh
    added.

    Source: Torrentfreak.com

  6. #146
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Today
    Posts
    4,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    Greek ISPs Ordered to Block 38 Domains, Including The Pirate Bay

    Following a request from a local anti-piracy group, Greek Internet service providers are required to block access to The Pirate Bay, 1337x, YTS, and several other pirate sites. The order, issued by a special Government-affiliated commission, also targets several popular subtitle sites.

    Copyright holders are increasingly demanding that ISPs should block access to pirate sites in order to protect their business.

    As the bastion of online piracy, The Pirate Bay has become one of the main targets. The site has been blocked in roughly two-dozen countries already, mostly in Europe.

    Earlier this week we reported that Romania had joined in on the action, following a
    court order, and only a few days later Greek Internet providers are now ordered to block the notorious torrent site as well.

    The blocking request was filed this spring by the Society for the Protection of Audiovisual Works (EPOE), a local anti-piracy group which represents the interests of major Greek copyright holders.

    The group filed an application with the IPPC, a special commission that falls under the Greek Ministry of Culture and Sports, which decided that ISPs must block a total of 38 domain names.

    The targeted sites include The Pirate Bay, 1337x, YTS, as well as several popular local sites, such as Xrysoi, Gamatotv, and Tainiomania. With Subztv.club, Subtitles.gr, and others, subtitle sites are thrown into the mix as well.

    According to the Government-affiliated commission, it is apparent that all the targeted sites are involved in large-scale copyright infringement.

    The commission has set a tight deadline of 48 hours for ISPs to comply with the order. Those who fail to do so face a fine of 850 euros per day, Lawspot
    reports.

    The order stands for three years and it specifically states that offenses committed by users are not covered.

    It’s worth noting that this wasn’t the first attempt to block The Pirate Bay and other pirate sites in Greece. AEPI previously launched a civil court case, but at the time the court ruled that pirate site blocks were
    disproportionate and unconstitutional.

    It’s questionable whether this would hold up today, though, as the EU Court of Justice ruled otherwise
    last year.

    Whether the current blockades will help to deter piracy in a meaningful way has yet to be seen. As usual, there are several options to bypass ISP blockades, and the targeted sites themselves often offer alternative domains.



    The full list of domain names is posted below and a copy of the order can be found here.

    1. https://xrysoi.online
    2. xrysoi.se
    3. xrysoi.eu
    4.
    http://gamatotv.me
    5. thegmtv.org,
    6. gamatotv.to
    7. https: //onlinemoviestar.xyz
    8. onlinemoviestar.com
    9. tainies.online
    10. tenies.online
    11.
    https://tenies-online.com
    12. teniesonline.ucoz.com
    13. https: // oipeirates .online
    14. oipeirates.eu
    15. oipeirates.se
    16.
    http://tainio-mania.com
    17. tainiomania.ucoz.com
    18. https: // liomenoi.com
    19. moviecinema.gr
    20. moviecinematv.online
    21.
    http://tainiesonline.tv
    22.
    https://magico.info
    23.
    http://www.subs4free.com
    24. small-industry.com
    25. rnedium-industry.com
    26.
    https://subztv.club
    27. http: // www .greeksubtitles.info
    28. htt : //
    www.subtitles.gr
    29.
    https://thepiratebay.org
    30. thepiratebay.se
    31. thepiratebay.me
    32. thepiratebay3.org
    33.
    https://yts.am
    34. https: //www.1337x.to
    35. 1337x.st
    36. 1337x.ws
    37. 1337x.eu
    38. 1337x.se

    Source: Torrentfreak.com

  7. #147
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Today
    Posts
    4,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    MPAA Considers a ‘Makeover’ As It Faces Shrinking Budget

    Disney's acquisition of 20th Century Fox has been one of the major entertainment industry stories this year. Indirectly, it also impacts Hollywood's industry group the MPAA, which loses one of its six members. This prompted insiders to rethink the organization's future and reportedly, streaming giants such as Netflix are being considered as future members.

    The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has protected Hollywood’s interest for nearly a century now.

    In recent years the organization’s anti-piracy efforts have made the headlines repeatedly. Not just domestically, but around the world, through its site-blocking efforts for example.

    Traditionally, the MPAA obtains most of its revenue from the six major Hollywood studios. The latest public filings show that these membership dues totaled nearly $50 million.

    This number is significantly less than before, as
    we reported earlier, but new information suggests that it may drop even further.

    As a result of Disney’s acquisition of 20th Century Fox, the MPAA stands to lose one-sixth of its membership dues. Disney promised to pay Fox’s share for another year after the deal is finalized, but what happens next is uncertain.

    According to a
    report from The Information, the MPAA is now discussing a makeover of the organization.

    While no crystalized plans have been released, several insiders said that the group is considering accepting new members, including streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon. This would add more revenue, but also broaden the organization’s mandate.

    It is unknown how concrete these plans are or whether the MPAA approached potential new members already. Whatever the eventual direction may be, it won’t be an easy task.

    “This can’t just be an economic exercise,” one of the people familiar with the discussions told The Information. “It has to be a come-to-Jesus moment.”

    Although Amazon and Netflix have a shared interest with Hollywood on some fronts, both have their differences as well. The MPAA has been at odds with major tech companies over the years, companies that are closely aligned with the streaming giants.

    That said, Amazon, Netflix, and the MPAA already work together in another anti-piracy initiative. They are all part of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), which counts 30 companies in total.

    The ACE coalition is, in fact,
    running on the MPAA’s anti-piracy resources, including personnel. That brings up the next makeover option.

    If the MPAA can’t continue in its current form and is unable to add more members, whether those are traditional movie studios or streaming providers, some people suggested that it could fold into ACE.

    That’s an even more complex path, perhaps, since the MPAA does more than fighting piracy. But in theory, the MPAA could continue as is in a slimmed down version, while its anti-piracy efforts move to ACE.

    For now, it’s all just speculation. But it’s clear that the MPAA has more on its mind than fighting pirates.

    Source: Torrentfreak.com

  8. #148
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Today
    Posts
    4,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    Researchers Report Elsevier to EU Anti-Competition Authority

    Academic publisher Elsevier has repeatedly made the news for its battle with Sci-Hub, the "Pirate Bay" of science. However, while Elsevier is using copyrights to protect its business, academic-insiders accuse the publisher of "anti-competitive" actions.

    Academia certainly isn’t our prime focus here at TorrentFreak, but we have mentioned Elsevier repeatedly throughout the years.

    With a net income of roughly $3 billion and operating profits exceeding $1 billion, Elsevier is one of the largest academic publishers in the world. One that protects its business
    with vigor.

    The company
    has sued ‘pirate’ sites “Sci-Hub and “LibGen” for the unauthorized distribution of millions of scientific papers, for example.

    This resulted in a
    million dollar verdict in favor of the publisher, which was also able to seize several domain names. While Sci-Hub and LibGen are still around, Elsevier recently stepped up its game by obtaining an ISP blocking order against the sites in question.

    So far, these efforts run parallel to what we see in the media piracy world. Torrent sites such as The Pirate Bay have been sued as well, and are now blocked in countries all over the world.

    There is a significant difference though. The major movie studios who sue pirates sites have a good reputation in the industry, while Elsevier is heavily criticized by universities and researchers.

    This criticism is
    far from new, but where the battle was previously fought in op-eds and on social media, it’s now on the agenda of the European Union as well. Pressure is mounting.

    The first
    complaint comes from researchers Dr. Jonathan Tennant and Prof. Dr. Björn Brembs, who referred Elsevier’s parent company RELX Group to the EU Anti-Competition Authority late last month.

    A serious allegation, but it turned out to be just the start.

    This week, it was followed by a similar call from the European University Association (EUA), which represents over 800 higher education institutions in 47 countries throughout Europe.

    In a letter (
    pdf) to the European Commission, the organization shares its concern about the lack of transparency and competition in Europe’s academic publishing sector, mentioning Elsevier and similar publishers.

    One of the main frustrations is that researchers and universities provide the manpower and articles for these publishers, work that’s often funded with public money. This is then sold back to them by the publishers at high prices.

    Or as EUA puts it:

    “As a well-known allegory says: ‘Imagine a farmer who owns, feeds and milks his cow in order to give away the milk for free to a dairy company – and then finally buys it back in a milk carton at a very high price’. This is the business model of big research publishers.”

    While publishers such as Elsevier use copyrights to protect and exploit their work, the nature of the “competition” issue is more complex.

    Jonathan Tennant, who filed the first complaint with the EU Anti-Competition Authority, tells TorrentFreak that competition is hard to achieve when every academic article is unique and valuable. The articles are not substitutable, you either have access to it or you don’t.

    The second problem is that Elsevier and others keep their pricing agreements secret, often through non-disclosure agreements, which is widely seen as an anti-competitive practice.

    “Both of these things together, as well as issues to do with copyright, ‘marketplace’ concentration, obscenely high profits, and vendor lock-in all create an unsuitable ‘market’ around scholarly publishing, which has a negative impact across the entire research sector,” Tennant tells us.

    Tennant and Brembs don’t provide any recommendations in their report. They’re leaving it up to the European Commission to decide what’s appropriate, but they believe that banning non-disclosure clauses and providing more transparency are two possible steps.

    In an ideal world, one could argue that all academic research should be available for free. In the current system, many researchers don’t have access to some of the research in their field due to financial reasons, which hinders the progress of science.

    This is also the main reason why Alexandra Elbakyan started the pirate research library Sci-Hub several years ago. Many researchers rely on it as a source, but Tennant says that he has some sort of love-hate relationship with the controversial pirate library.

    “I think what Alexandra and Sci-Hub have done is phenomenal in emphasing the incredible dysfunction in research access from a greedy corporate publishing sector. It has demonstrated that access to knowledge is simple to provide.

    “I think it also helps to level the playing field, from an industry whose business model is based on knowledge discrimination based on elite/financial status. For these things, and for being a symptom of a broken industry, I think it is wonderful,” he adds.

    However, Tennant argues that it has also had some negative consequences. As founder of
    Open Science MOOC, he is a strong supporter of Open Access research, where papers are published without paywalls, and believes Sci-Hub may hinder the progress of this movement.

    “Because Sci-Hub provides a simple, easy shortcut to free access (not Open Access), it removes some of the incentives for researchers to engage with Open Access in a more sustainable manner. For example, by self-archiving their work for free,” he notes.

    That said, Tennant doesn’t think that terms such as ‘piracy’ and ‘theft’ necessarily apply to Sci-Hub. At least, not any more than it could apply to some of the major publishers themselves.

    “Sometimes I think that it is the scholarly publishing industry themselves who are the thieves, blackmailing content/copyright from researchers and then preventing access to it as their business model.

    “Depends which side of the ethical fence you fall on – private or public gain,” he adds.

    Tennant hopes that the European Commission will pick up the ball to end to what he sees as an abuse of power and copyright. Where Sci-Hub tries to “tear down the paywalls” through force, ultimately he believes that it’s more sustainable to change the publishing system itself.

    Tennant, who was at a blockchain for science conference this week, has some ideas of his own. Ideally, the future of academic publishing should be open, flexible, and relying on modern technologies.

    “My ideal scenario would be a much more granular and lightweight system of continuous editing and review – something like GitHub combined with Stack Exchange combined with Wikipedia,” he says.

    “Community-owned, low cost, open source, open everything, sustainable, inherently reproducible, less biased, non-profit, collaborative, instantaneous, fair, and equitable.

    “Something like that would be inherently easy to create, should we start again from scratch today,” Tennant concludes.

    Source: Torrentfreak.com

  9. #149
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Today
    Posts
    4,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    Corel Wrongly Accuses Licensed User of Piracy, Disables Software Remotely

    [I]Earlier this year, Corel obtained a patent which enables the company to offer software pirates an amnesty deal via a messaging system. While this can be a smart approach, it is not without its flaws. This week, the company remotely disabled the software of a fully-licensed user of Paintshop Pro and left his medical-related business unable to meet customer needs.

    While the majority of computing devices come with sophisticated operating systems installed, users will almost certainly need to buy additional software to meet their needs.

    Open Source software can usually be obtained for free but millions of users opt for paid products that need to be licensed by the companies offering them.

    Of course, piracy is a significant problem for the developers behind the majority of premium products. Most are available from torrent sites or file-hosting platforms, often arriving with a ‘crack’ that allows users to enjoy without paying.

    Companies often have sophisticated systems to detect unlicensed products, sometimes with the reasonable aim of attempting to convert pirates into paying consumers. Earlier this year we reported on Corel’s efforts in this space after the company
    obtained a patent for a system which is able to offer an amnesty to illegal users via a popup.

    “The amnesty offer may, for example, agree not to bring criminal charges in exchange for the user purchasing a legitimate copy of the product,” Corel’s patent reads.

    “In this manner, the user of the pirated version is given the opportunity to purchase a legitimate copy which, if acted on, increases revenue for the manufacturer.”

    While this is fair enough, what happens when it all goes wrong? Earlier this week, TorrentFreak was contacted by an angry Corel customer who was witnessing first hand what can happen when a piracy detection system blows a fuse.

    “I am a valid and licensed user and Corel support has records of my license key and right to use this software on my work PC,” he told us.

    Despite paying the company as required, he received the following popup instead.

    Scary message from Corel

    https://torrentfreak.com/images/corel-warning.png

    The message couldn’t be more clear. Corel states that the copy in use is illegal and as a result, its functionality has been severely limited. “All save, export and print features will be permanently disabled,” it warns.

    According to Corel, all of these problems can be solved with a click of the blue “BUY A LEGAL COPY NOW” button, something that made our contact extremely angry.

    “I get this extortion popup and threat to my means to make a living. I feel like Corel has hijacked my computer, my artwork and images and is preventing me from making a living just to sell another upgrade. This is wrong, and something needs to be done about his practice,” he told us.

    It’s not surprising that the user was upset at Corel remotely disabling his software. Aside from having a valid license, his work ground to a halt. Initial emails back and forth had him messing around in his computer’s registry in an effort to fix the problem but all the time he was unable to carry on with his job.

    “I have owned a licensed copy of Corel PrintShop Pro since 9/2016 and use it multiple times each day for work. I use it for editing and creating graphics and logos for customers that host events and in the medical field for patient wristbands at hospitals and clinics,” he told TF.

    “These images are used to identify and even categorize different types of patients and attendees at events. At this time, I’m unable to meet the needs of my customers because I can’t save any new artwork for them. This has now gone on for more than 24 hours.”

    Eventually, after lengthy email exchanges, the problem got fixed, albeit after Corel’s customer had been unable to use his software for an extended period. He says that the problem has left a bad taste in his mouth and wonders how many other people are getting the message and, crucially, whether less technical users are paying to have the anti-piracy message removed.

    “I’m not sure how [the steps Corel took] corrected my license issue or if it just took me off the ‘hit list’ of victims of what I still feel was some kind of scam. Still no apology from Corel for the problems caused or the delays it forced on me,” he added.

    TorrentFreak contacted Corel requesting information and received a response from Gerard Metrailler, EVP of Global Products, whose name is on the patent issued earlier this year.

    “Our anti-piracy measures are designed specifically to protect our IP. And as part of this process, we offer an amnesty program on many of our products that gives users an easy way to purchase a legitimate version of our software at an affordable price,” Metrailler explained.

    “Unfortunately, some users who believe they are running legitimate versions of our software are surprised to receive a notification that their license is invalid. In many of these cases, the products were purchased from online marketplaces, often at very low prices, and the users were not aware they were buying illegitimate software.

    “It’s critical to note that customers should always purchase our software from authorized resellers or Corel directly,” he added.

    Given comments on Corel’s forums about unlicensed resellers, early in the week TF checked with the user where he’d obtained his license. According to an original purchase receipt reviewed by TF, it was obtained from the company’s own online store and everything was in order.

    Corel did, however, suggest that a customer could receive the anti-piracy warning in error and said any customers who believe they are affected should contact the company right away.

    n the very rare event of a mis-identification, I can assure you that we will work quickly to get the issue corrected. We agree that even one customer affected by a mistake like this is one customer too many,” Metrailler said.

    We asked Corel how many customers take them up on their offer of reduced price software as part of an amnesty but the company provided no details. We asked if there were any safeguards to prevent licensed users paying up in error but received no response.

    Corel did, however, give TF a contact email address so that their customer can get directly in touch, and we’ve forwarded that to him. In the meantime, directly with the customer and independently of our discussions with him and the company, Corel support offered him a 5% discount on future purchases.

    “I want to ask them if that 5% is good for Photoshop,” the customer commented dryly.

    Source: Torrentfreak.com

  10. #150
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Today
    Posts
    4,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    MPAA: Switzerland Remains “Extremely Attractive” For Pirate Sites

    In a recent submission to the US Trade Representative, the MPAA again states that Switzerland’s copyright law is wholly inadequate, making it extremely attractive to host illegal sites there. The European country has plans to update its laws, but the proposed changes are no significant improvement, Hollywood's trade group notes.

    While the European Union has worked hard to strengthen its copyright laws in recent years, one country in the heart of the continent chooses its own path.

    Switzerland is not part of the EU, which means that its policies deviate quite a bit from its neighbors. According to Hollywood, that’s not helping creators.

    Responding to recent submission to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the MPAA has identified several foreign “trade barriers” around the world. In Hollywood’s case, many of these are related to piracy.

    One of the countries that’s highlighted, in rather harsh terms, is Switzerland. According to the MPAA, the country’s copyright law is “wholly inadequate” which, among other things, makes it “extremely attractive” to host illegal sites.

    “Switzerland’s copyright law is wholly inadequate, lacking crucial mechanisms needed for enforcement in the digital era,’ MPAA writes.

    “Switzerland lacks meaningful remedies and effective enforcement against online copyright infringement. Switzerland’s inadequate legal framework and robust technical infrastructure make it an extremely attractive host for illegal sites.”

    One of the concerns is that the Swiss currently have no requirement for Internet services to remove infringing content. In addition, services can’t be held liable for infringements of customers.

    The Hollywood group says this should change, adding that it also wants ISPs to aid their piracy battle, and to make sure that “copying” from unauthorized sources is outlawed. The MPAA proposes several changes the Swiss should implement, which include:

    1) Ensuring liability under Swiss law for parties who facilitate, encourage, and profit from widespread infringement
    2) Engaging ISPs in the fight against online piracy
    3) Affirming that current law does not permit copying from unauthorized sources
    4) Implementing adequate civil and criminal enforcement tools

    While this sounds like a rather pressing matter, these recommendations and the associated problems are far from new. The MPAA’s submission does at times read like a broken record, using the exact same language as four years ago, as seen below.


    These ‘copied’ sections appear throughout the report, also affecting other countries. For example, Hollywood still wants tougher penalties for Australian camcording pirates,
    using the same text as in 2014.

    This suggests that, in some cases, no progress has been made at all. In Switzerland, however, that’s not the case.

    With a
    new copyright law proposed last year, the Swiss aim to address the critique.

    For example, the country addresses the hosting problem by introducing a “take-down-and-stay-down” policy. Internet services will be required to remove infringing content from their platforms and prevent that same content from reappearing. Failure to comply will result in prosecution.

    In addition, the controversial Logistep ruling, which prevents companies from harvesting the IP addresses of file-sharers, will also be addressed.

    The MPAA is far from impressed though. In a freshly written paragraph, it notes that the new law is still insufficient.

    The Hollywood group explains that under the proposed law it will remain legal for people to download or stream pirated content privately, while website blocking remains unavailable.

    “The draft Copyright Act shows significant shortcomings and will not significantly improve copyright protection. The Swiss government has refused to introduce basic elements of internationally accepted anti-piracy legislation into Swiss law,” the MPAA writes.

    “For instance, the government dropped any access blocking mechanisms from the draft. Instead of proposing a legal source requirement for private use, the draft cements the understanding that private use of illegal sources is permitted.”

    It’s clear that Hollywood is not happy with how things are going in Switzerland, and it hopes that the US Government can help to steer things in the right direction.

    Unless that happens, we might see the same text appear again in the years to come. Copied from an authorized source, of course.




    Source: Torrentfreak.com

  11. #151
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Today
    Posts
    4,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    Pro-Copyright Bias is Alive, Well, and Still Hiding the Full Story

    In 2007 and as recently as January 2018, the director of the movie The Man From Earth was championing the promotional effects of piracy. Last week, out of nowhere, he appeared to do a complete turnaround, branding the phenomenon as a threat to all creators. Something didn't feel right about this apparent change of heart. Diving into the details, a bigger picture begins to emerge.

    In 2007, the movie The Man From Earth
    leaked on file-sharing networks, with unexpected results. Instead of proving nothing but damaging, the title gained almost universal praise, rocketing the sci-fi flick to stardom via word-of-mouth advertising.

    Director Richard Schenkman and producer Eric Wilkinson embraced the development and enthused over the attention their work was receiving online. Given the positive experience, during January 2018 the team deliberately ‘leaked’ the sequel – The Man from Earth: Holocene – on The Pirate Bay.

    Given that filmmakers tend to view piracy as the enemy, TorrentFreak enthusiastically reported both events. Sadly, we had less positive news to convey this week when, out of the blue, Schenkman published an article on the site of pro-industry, anti-piracy alliance CreativeFuture, in which he heavily
    criticized piracy.

    There can be little doubt that the piece was a gift to CreativeFuture and everyone who viewed Schenkman and Wilkinson’s place in the piracy debate as something positive for unauthorized sharing. The movie’s story had become a ray of light and here it was being shredded, a disastrous episode from which nothing good had come.

    At TorrentFreak, however, we had our doubts about the tone of the piece. Never before had we seen such a turnaround, particularly when reviewing all previous correspondence with Schenkman. Something didn’t add up.

    Mainly due to timezone differences, Schenkman responded to our questions after our article was published. However, his responses only served to increase our suspicions that what had been published on CreativeFuture wasn’t representative of his overall position on piracy.

    First of all, Schenkman was rightfully furious about his movie being distributed in Russia after being professionally dubbed, with his donation requests removed from the resulting copy. That, most people will agree, is a flat-out insult to someone who has bent over backward to accommodate piracy.

    He had every right to be annoyed but it’s worth noting that his anger was directed at one site, not necessarily pirates in general. In fact, Schenkman told us that plenty of positives have come out of the releases of both movies.

    “The only reason that people all over the world knew and loved the original ‘Man from Earth’ was because of piracy, so while I’m disappointed that we’ve (still) made so little money from the first film, I’m deeply grateful that so many people have been able to see my movie,” he told TF this week.

    “I’m still quite enthusiastic about, and deeply grateful for, the thousands of people who have written to us with kind words about the films, and who have made donations, large or small,” he added.

    “I well understand that once we released the movie into the pirate ecosystem, nobody was under any obligation whatsoever to send us one penny, so the fact that so many have made donations is stunning to me, and I’ll never cease to be appreciative and impressed by the number of people who embraced the honor system. And luckily, donations continue to come in every day.”

    For those wondering whether Schenkman’s piece in CreativeFuture and his comments to us might’ve been penned by a different author, assumption forgiven. From our contacts with him in 2007 right through to the present day, we have found Schenkman to be an honest man and a pleasure to deal with. He has never said anything to suggest that piracy is an “existential threat” to creators as mentioned in his piece. So why the sudden negativity?

    We all know that life events can shape perceptions, so when the movie’s website and donation portal were hacked around six weeks ago, things began to take a turn for the worse. No revenue for weeks (and thousands in costs to bring it back) appear to have negatively affected the experience for the director. Then other types of piracy happened, ones that ensured that donations would be reduced.

    “I learned that there were other people who ignored our requests to share only the version we uploaded, and ripped the movie from BluRay, so that there are versions floating around without my donation preface, even though we DID upload a full HD (BD quality) version of the picture,” Schenkman told TorrentFreak.

    Even given the above events, however, the piece in CreativeFuture appears unnecessarily one-sided for a man who still had confidence in the piracy ecosystem a few months ago. Indeed, Schenkman told us this week that his team planned hard for the ‘pirate’ release of Holocene.

    “In the case of the new film, we worked for months to promote awareness, so that there would be a groundswell of interest from fans of the original film. I would say that this effort at least partially worked,” he explained.

    “In the first week of the pirate release, many thousands of people a day downloaded it, so there was a clear pent-up demand. And we’ve seen more donations come from the ‘Holocene’ release than we ever did from [Man From Earth] alone. So yes, in that sense, the ‘authorized leak’ of the new film has definitely helped spread awareness.

    “The movie would have been pirated regardless; by doing it ourselves, we were, to some degree, able to control the narrative, and indeed it became more of a ‘story’, just the same way that ‘producers thank pirates’ became a story at the time of the original film’s release,” he added.

    In a long email exchange, Schenkman told us that plenty of fans who didn’t even particularly like his sequel contacted him to congratulate him on choosing the honor system, while donating $5 as a ‘thank you’.

    “You’d be surprised at how many of those messages I’ve gotten,” he told us.

    But while Schenkman might be surprised at this generosity, we certainly aren’t surprised that none of this came out in the CreativeFuture piece.

    It’s understandable that CreativeFuture want to fight their corner with a flawless, polished, and invulnerable anti-piracy narrative, but thankfully we aren’t afraid of calling out both sides of this war, when it’s called for. People deserve that honesty.

    For example, Schenkman wanted to speak about some of his frustrations with movie distribution in his article. He believes that the international distribution system is flawed because there isn’t an efficient and fair commercial way to make an indie movie available everywhere, on the same day, unless Netflix buys it.

    Those sentiments didn’t make the CreativeFuture piece but we’re happy to let him have a voice here.

    “Even now, there isn’t a fair, equitable way for an indie filmmaker like me to make their movie available everywhere around the world at once. Even Amazon, which is in virtually every country, doesn’t allow you to simply upload your movie and with the click of a button make it available everywhere,” he says.

    “I think they’ll eventually get there, but not anytime soon. If Netflix buys your movie, great — but if they don’t, you’re back to the antiquated system of going to international film markets and trying to sell you film country by country, a costly, inefficient, and time-consuming process (and again, you’re totally at the mercy of the ‘gatekeepers’).

    “When we first released ‘Holocene’ we also made it available at Vimeo and MovieSaints, two platforms which allow access to viewers from most countries. Moviesaints has a unique system allowing both for a partial refund if you don’t like the movie, as well as a ‘tip the filmmaker’ function if you want to provide more support,” he adds.

    And then comes an even stronger hint as to why Schenkman’s important comments didn’t make his own article.

    “While we’ve seen revenue from both of these platforms, it doesn’t approach the total we’ve earned from donations. So the good news is that thousands of people who watched ‘Holocene’ via the pirate ecosystem have kindly, generously made donations to help support independent film,” he says.

    Of course, in the interests of fair reporting we’re absolutely unafraid of publishing the not-so-good news too, so here it is – warts and all.

    “The bad news is that hundreds of thousands (or millions) more have not, and thus we are still a long way from breaking even on this very low-budget movie. I really don’t see a sustainable business model for a truly independent filmmaker creating these kinds of thoughtful, serious movies, although I remain open to ideas!” Schenkman concludes.

    While CreativeFuture are absolutely entitled to publish whatever they see fit on their own site, it seems clear from Schenkman’s article (and his comments to us spanning more than a decade) that they are only interested in a tightly-controlled narrative that leaves room for criticism of piracy, but none to detail some of the self-inflicted reasons behind much of it.

    Piracy is certainly controversial and it can be bad, we’ve acknowledged as much in this piece. But hiding important parts of the full story – especially when they highlight flaws in the distribution system that contributes to piracy’s existence – is just as corrosive.

    Source: Torrentfreak.com

  12. #152
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Today
    Posts
    4,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hitman 2’s Denuvo Protection Cracked Three Days Before Launch

    Hitman 2 is due to hit the streets on November 13, protected by the most up-to-date variant of Denuvo's anti-tamper technology. However, a cracking group appears to have obtained a version of the game destined for pre-order buyers, cracked it, and released it online three days early. Just last week, Denuvo suggested that four days protection could prove significant for game sales.

    Protecting video games from piracy has become big business over the years. The latest games consoles from Sony and Microsoft appear relatively secure but the same cannot be said about PC titles.

    Due to the fact that PC games are loaded onto a platform that is instantly accessible to hackers, it’s almost inevitable that any games worth having will have their piracy protections removed at some point and leak online for all to download.

    The company on the anti-piracy frontlines is Denuvo. Its anti-tamper technology is fiendishly difficult to crack and as such it regularly finds its way on to many of the gaming world’s most cherished titles. However, Denuvo is not infallible so regularly finds itself targeted by crackers.

    This weekend, the technology suffered yet another disappointing blow. The long-awaiting stealth game Hitman 2 – which comes ‘protected’ by the latest variant of Denuvo (v5.3) – leaked online. Aside from having its protection circumvented, this happened three days before the title’s official launch on November 13.

    It appears that a relatively new cracking group called FCKDRM (more on them in a moment) obtained a version of Hitman 2 that was only available to those who pre-ordered the game. There are some reports of the crack failing at times on some machines but nevertheless, this leak is important on a number of fronts.

    Firstly, the game leaked online three days early, rendering the protection when the game finally comes out much less useful. Secondly, presuming the original copy of the game was obtained on Friday when the pre-order copy was delivered, it took just a single day for the group to crack Denuvo’s latest protection.

    Considering an
    announcement made by Denuvo just last week, this is a pretty embarrassing turn of events. Denuvo’s aim is to protect games in their initial release window and according to the company, having no protection can result in millions of dollars in potential lost revenue in just a couple of weeks.

    To be on the safe side, however, the company also highlighted the importance of protecting games for just four days (notably a couple of Denuvo-protected titles recently withstood attack for the same number period). Winding back further still, the company said that even providing protection for an hour is worthwhile. Clearly, minus three days didn’t figure into Denuvo’s plans.

    While several groups have been chipping away at Denuvo for some time, FCKDRM is a new entrant (at least by branding) to the cracking scene. Notably, FCKDRM isn’t a ‘Scene’ group but one that works in P2P circles. At least for now, their identities remain a secret but their choice of name is interesting.

    FCKDRM is the official name for the
    anti-DRM initiative recently launched by GOG, a digital distribution platform for DRM-free video games and video.

    There’s no suggestion at all that GOG is involved in the cracking of Denuvo, of course, but the FCKDRM group are using GOG’s
    FCKDRM logowhen announcing releases, which certainly has the potential to confuse casual pirates.

    Given that Denuvo 5.3 was cracked so quickly (some crashing issues aside) it raises questions about other upcoming titles set to use similar technology. They include Battlefield V from EA/DICE, which has its official full release on November 20 but is already available to early access players.

    Source: Torrentfreak.com

  13. #153
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Today
    Posts
    4,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week on BitTorrent – 11/12/18

    The top 10 most downloaded movies on BitTorrent are in again. 'Mission: Impossible - Fallout' tops the chart this week, followed by ‘The Equalizer 2'. 'The Meg' completes the top three.

    This week we have three newcomers in our chart.

    Mission: Impossible – Fallout 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.

    RSS feed for the articles of the recent weekly movie download charts.

    This week’s most downloaded movies are:

    Movie Rank Rank last week Movie name IMDb Rating / Trailer
    Most downloaded movies via torrents
    1 (…) Mission: Impossible – Fallout 8.0 / trailer
    2 (1) The Equalizer 2 6.9 / trailer
    3 (2) The Meg 5.9 / trailer
    4 (3) Incredibles 2 8.0 / trailer
    5 (5) Mile 22 6.1 / trailer
    6 (…) Outlaw king 7.1 / trailer
    7 (6) Alpha 6.9 / trailer
    8 (4) The Nun (subbed HDRip) 5.7 / trailer
    9 (…) Kin 5.6 / trailer
    10 (9) BlacKkKlansman 7.7 / trailer

    Source: Torrentfreak.com

  14. #154
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Today
    Posts
    4,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    YouTube CEO Says That Videos May Be Blocked Due to EU Copyright Law

    YouTube's CEO is warning that the platform may have to begin blocking videos in response to legislation making its way through the EU Parliament. The final text of Article 13 is yet to be decided but Susan Wojcicki is warning that the current wording would hold it responsible for the copyright infringements of users, something that could impact the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people.

    Two years ago the European Commission announced plans to modernize EU copyright law.

    Some of the proposals were hugely controversial. Article 13, for example, would see the liability for infringing content switched from users of sites like YouTube to the platform itself.

    But, despite warnings, in September the European Parliament
    voted in favor of proposals put forward by Axel Voss’ EPP group.

    This is a revised version of the original proposal, but one that would still pave the way for upload filters, to prevent infringing content from reaching sites like YouTube in the first place. However, speaking today in Financial Times
    (paywall), YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki says that blocking videos may be the platform’s only option.

    “While we support the goals of article 13, the European Parliament’s current proposal will create unintended consequences that will have a profound impact on the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people,” Wojcicki writes.

    “The parliament’s approach is unrealistic in many cases because copyright owners often disagree over who owns what rights. If the owners cannot agree, it is impossible to expect the open platforms that host this content to make the correct rights decisions.”

    Using the hit “Despacito” as an example, Wojcicki says that the track contains multiple copyrights including sound recording and publishing rights. YouTube has agreements with several parties to license the video but other rightsholders remain unknown. This could present a situation so complex that YouTube might have to stop hosting the video altogether.

    “That uncertainty means we might have to block videos like this to avoid liability under article 13. Multiply that risk with the scale of YouTube, where more than 400 hours of video are uploaded every minute, and the potential liabilities could be so large that no company could take on such a financial risk,” she adds.

    While the rest of the world appears to be safe from such blocking, YouTube’s CEO warns that it is EU residents that will be affected. During the last month alone, videos were viewed by citizens more than 90 billion times.

    Wojcicki says her company wants to work with policymakers and the industry to develop Article 13 in a way that protects rightsholders but without stifling the creative economy. That might including broader licensing agreements, improved collaboration with rightsholders, and technical solutions, similar to Content ID.

    “Platforms that follow these rules, and make a good effort to help rights holders identify their content, shouldn’t be held directly liable for every single piece of content that a user uploads,” Wojcicki writes.

    “We ask policymakers to find a solution that protects rights holders and creators alike, and listen to the growing number of EU voices, including some member countries, who agree there’s a better way forward.”

    In a
    report last week detailing how Google fights piracy, the company noted that between October 2017 to September 2018, YouTube had paid more than $1.8 billion to the music industry from in advertising revenue alone.

    Last Friday, however, that figure was challenged by IFPI Chief Executive, Frances Moore.

    “We welcome Google’s recognition that it and Google’s YouTube need to operate responsibly and properly value creators and their work. However, the figures in Google’s anti-piracy paper don’t match our own,” Moore said.

    “It is difficult to get any clarity on Google’s claims as it doesn’t explain its methodology, but IFPI data shows that revenue returning to the record industry through video streaming services (including but not limited to YouTube) with 1.3 billion users amounted to US $856 million in 2017 – less than half of Google’s claim and less than US $1 per user per year.”

    It seems clear that YouTube and the music industry are yet to see eye to eye on this problem but with the platform suggesting that blocking might be the only option, as we
    envisioned earlier, the pressure is increasing on supporters of Article 13 to avoid this worst-case scenario.

    Source: Torrentfreak.com

  15. #155
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Today
    Posts
    4,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    Nintendo ‘Wins’ $12 Million From Pirate ROM Site Operators

    The owners of now-defunct ROM sites LoveROMS.com and LoveRETRO.co have agreed to a $12 million judgment in favor of Nintendo. The operators, a married couple, admit to both direct and indirect copyright and trademark infringement. Both parties requested the court to sign off on this unusual judgment, which will end their legal battle.

    This summer, Nintendo made it totally clear that websites offering access to its retro-games and ROMs will not be tolerated.

    The Japanese game developer
    filed a complaint at a federal court in Arizona, accusing LoveROMS.com and LoveRETRO.co of massive copyright and trademark infringement.

    Faced with millions of dollars in potential damages, the operator of the sites, Jacob Mathias, swiftly took the platforms offline. The legal action also led to the shutdown several other ROM sites, who feared they could be next.

    It quickly became clear that the Mathias and his wife, who was later added to the complaint, were not looking forward to a drawn-out legal battle. Instead, they engaged in settlement discussions with Nintendo, hoping to resolve the matter without too much bloodshed.

    Today we can report that both sides have indeed reached a deal. They agreed to a consent judgment and a permanent injunction that will resolve all outstanding disputes.

    Paperwork obtained by TorrentFreak shows that Mathias and his wife admit that their involvement with the websites constituted direct and indirect copyright and trademark infringement, which caused Nintendo irreparable injury.

    However, on paper, the married couple won’t be getting off cheaply. On the contrary, they actually agreed to a judgment that exceeds $12 million.

    “Plaintiff is hereby awarded judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $12,230,000,” the proposed language reads.


    It seems unlikely that the couple has this kind of money in the bank, or that a jury would have reached a similar figure. So why the high amount?

    We can only speculate but it’s possible that Nintendo negotiated such a high number, on paper, to act as a deterrent for other site operators. In practice, the defendants could end up paying much less.

    It wouldn’t be the first time that a judgment in court is more than what the parties agreed to privately. This happened before in the MPAA’s lawsuit against Hotfile, where a $80 million judgment in court translated to
    $4 million behind the scenes settlement.

    In addition to the monetary judgment, both parties also agreed on a permanent injunction. This will prevent the couple from infringing Nintendo’s copyrights going forward.

    They further have to hand over all Nintendo games and emulators they have, at their own expense. On top of that, the permanent injunction requires them to sign over LoveROMs.com and LoveRETRO.co to the Japanese company.

    The documents have yet to be signed off by a judge but considering that both parties agree with it, that should be a formality. After that, it’s game over.




    Source: Torrentfreak.com

  16. #156
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Today
    Posts
    4,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    SETTV IPTV Service Ordered to Pay DISH $90,000,000 in Piracy Damages

    SETTV, an under-fire IPTV service previously sued by several Hollywood studios, has suffered a crushing blow in another US-based lawsuit. After being sued by DISH Network and Nagrastar for retransmitting the former's content without authorization, SETTV has now agreed to pay the plaintiffs more than $90 million while shutting down and handing over its domains and equipment.

    Back in April, the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, the global anti-piracy alliance featuring several Hollywood studios, Amazon, Netflix, and dozens of other entertainment companies,
    sued Florida-based SET Broadcast, LLC.

    The popular unauthorized IPTV was accused of being a piracy tool offering copyright-infringing streams to a large number of subscribers. Early June,
    SETTV went offline after a second lawsuit was filed against the company.

    In a Florida court, DISH Network and encryption partner NagraStar sued several individuals, companies and trusts collectively doing business as SETTV via the domain SETTVNOW.com. The plaintiffs stated that the complex business structure was designed to frustrate enforcement efforts and hide profits made by SET Broadcast and various individuals.

    “Defendants created a pirate streaming television service they have branded ‘SET TV’,” the complaint reads, citing offenses under the Federal Communications Act (FCA).

    “Defendants sell subscriptions and devices for the SET TV pirate streaming service, which includes numerous television channels that were received without authorization from DISH’s satellite service and were subsequently retransmitted without authorization on the SET TV pirate streaming service.”

    DISH and NagraStar alleged that “for only $20 per month”, SET TV gave users access to more than 500 live channels, including on-demand content and PPV broadcasts. The company also sold pre-configured hardware devices that came pre-loaded with the SET TV application. As a result, the plaintiffs demanded a permanent injunction plus huge damages.

    In an agreed judgment handed down by a Florida court (the merits of the case were not considered), the demands of DISH and NagraStar have now been met.

    “DISH is awarded statutory damages of $90,199,000 under the FCA. The statutory damages are calculated at the parties’ agreed upon $500 for each of the 180,398 subscribers that were acquired directly by Defendants and provided with unauthorized access to DISH’s television programming using Defendants’ SetTV streaming service. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for all damages awarded herein,” the judgment reads.

    The defendants in the case (and anyone acting in concert with them) are also permanently enjoined from “receiving, retransmitting, or copying, or assisting others in receiving, retransmitting, or copying, any of DISH’s satellite or over-the-top Internet transmissions of television programming or any content contained therein without authorization”, and having any dealings with infringing subscriptions, set-top devices, or applications.

    DISH also won the right to take ownership of all SETTV-branded set-top boxes, similar devices sold through resellers and affiliates, plus subscription codes, passwords and applications relating to the SETTV service.

    Additionally, SETTV is required to hand over any domains relating to its service, including but not limited to SETTVNOW.com and SETBROADCAST.com.

    “The judgment and injunction against the SetTV service marks a significant victory in the ongoing fight against pay-TV piracy, and a win for consumers who subscribe to legitimate pay-TV services,” DISH said in a statement.

    “Following extensive discovery, DISH and the SetTV Defendants reached a confidential settlement agreement. Pursuant to that agreement, the Parties filed stipulated facts and admissions of liability by the SetTV Defendants, along with an agreed judgment and permanent injunction that was entered by the Court on October 24, 2018.

    “In compliance with the Court’s injunction, the SetTV service has been shut down permanently and the websites used to operate the service, along with all remaining inventory of receivers and subscription codes, will be forfeited for destruction.”

    In common with similarly large damages rulings, it’s unlikely that SETTV will pay anything like the amount cited by the Court. However, the $90m judgment makes great headlines and is likely to act as a deterrent to all but the most aggressive US-based pirates.

    Source: Torrentfreak.com

  17. #157
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Today
    Posts
    4,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    Domain Registrars and Registries Don’t Want to ‘Police’ Piracy

    Copyright holders would like domain name registrars and registries to take a more active anti-piracy approach. There was some serious movement in this direction last year when a new copyright arbitration process was proposed that put domains including that of The Pirate Bay at risk. However, the plan has since been canned, as various parties believe that it went a step too far.

    There are plenty of options for copyright holders to frustrate the operations of pirate sites, but one of the most effective is to attack their domain names.

    In recent years, various entertainment industry groups have called on the domain name industry to help out on this front.

    As a result, the MPAA signed a
    landmark agreement with the Donuts registry under which the movie industry group acts as a “trusted notifier” of “pirate” domains. A similar deal was later announced with the Radix registry.

    This was later followed by a much more ambitious plan. Last year, the
    Domain Name Association, which counts prominent registrars and registries among its members, unveiled its Healthy Domains Initiative, a voluntary self-regulation scheme to tackle all kinds of abuse.

    According to the initially
    published outline, it would institute a copyright arbitration policy to deal with pervasive instances of copyright infringement. This would allow copyright holders to request that domain names be taken offline, without going to court.

    This plan, also referred to as SCDRP, was listed as a proposal from the Public Internet Registry (
    PIR). PIR oversees the registrations of .org domains, including ThePirateBay.org, which was a likely candidate for this arbitration process.

    According to Idaho Law Professor Annemarie Bridy, who recently published a
    handbook chapter on developments in copyright-related domain and DNS regulation, the arbitration plan would dwarf that of the MPAA’s trusted notifier agreements.

    “If PIR were to implement the SCDRP, the RIAA would almost certainly succeed in having the Pirate Bay quietly shut down without subjecting itself to the expense and publicity associated with a lawsuit against its longtime nemesis,” Bridy writes.


    However, more than a year has passed and the proposed arbitration scheme appears to have vanished.

    The Domain Name Association’s Healthy Domains Initiative
    is still alive and taking proactive steps against abuse, but the copyright arbitration proposal has been removed from the earlier document.

    So what’s going on here? As it turns out, many prominent players in the domain name industry felt that the copyright arbitration plans went a step too far.

    Registries and registrars believe it’s their role to help the public set up domain names and manage DNS entries, but they don’t want to take an active role as copyright enforcers of content they don’t ‘host’.

    “It was really strongly pointed out to the working group that the hosting services are not necessarily in the same division or even same company, and that such things are entirely outside of the registration process,” Jothan Frakes, Domain Name Association’s Executive Director, informs TorrentFreak.

    “The registry or registrar thus are really not part of that content hosting process, and injecting them into that process or putting registrar or registry in the role (and costs and potential legal exposure) of content policing,” he adds.

    That said, under the Healthy Domain Initiative, these companies do take action against domain names with other problematic content. This includes domains pointing to “rogue” pharmacies and child abuse.

    Many registrars and registries clearly felt that the copyright arbitration plan went too far though.

    The Public Internet Registry (PIR) shares this observation. The organization’s general counsel
    previously said that they are not happy with The Pirate Bay’s presence on an .org domain, and that it’s a prime candidate to be removed under the right conditions.

    However, PIR is not happy with initiatives such as the MPAA’s trusted notifier scheme and after discussions with other stakeholders, it felt that the copyright arbitration plan lacks support as well.

    This means that PIR will not implement SCADR, despite repeated calls from rightsholders and governments to engage registrars and registries in potential content regulation.

    “Public Interest Registry is an advocate for a free, open, safe and secure internet. To that end, we believe that any effort to mitigate content-related abuses should be tightly circumscribed and keenly focused on fostering these principles and ensuring due process,” PIR informs TorrentFreak.

    And so ThePirateBay.org and many other domains are safe, for now.

    The decision to remove the arbitration plans obviously comes as a huge disappointment to copyright industry groups such as the MPAA and RIAA. While they can still take action against domain names, they will have to go to court instead.

    Source: Torrentfreak.com

  18. #158
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Today
    Posts
    4,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    Domain Registrars and Registries Don’t Want to ‘Police’ Piracy

    Copyright holders would like domain name registrars and registries to take a more active anti-piracy approach. There was some serious movement in this direction last year when a new copyright arbitration process was proposed that put domains including that of The Pirate Bay at risk. However, the plan has since been canned, as various parties believe that it went a step too far.

    There are plenty of options for copyright holders to frustrate the operations of pirate sites, but one of the most effective is to attack their domain names.

    In recent years, various entertainment industry groups have called on the domain name industry to help out on this front.

    As a result, the MPAA signed a
    landmark agreement with the Donuts registry under which the movie industry group acts as a “trusted notifier” of “pirate” domains. A similar deal was later announced with the Radix registry.

    This was later followed by a much more ambitious plan. Last year, the
    Domain Name Association, which counts prominent registrars and registries among its members, unveiled its Healthy Domains Initiative, a voluntary self-regulation scheme to tackle all kinds of abuse.

    According to the initially
    published outline, it would institute a copyright arbitration policy to deal with pervasive instances of copyright infringement. This would allow copyright holders to request that domain names be taken offline, without going to court.

    This plan, also referred to as SCDRP, was listed as a proposal from the Public Internet Registry (
    PIR). PIR oversees the registrations of .org domains, including ThePirateBay.org, which was a likely candidate for this arbitration process.

    According to Idaho Law Professor Annemarie Bridy, who recently published a
    handbook chapter on developments in copyright-related domain and DNS regulation, the arbitration plan would dwarf that of the MPAA’s trusted notifier agreements.

    “If PIR were to implement the SCDRP, the RIAA would almost certainly succeed in having the Pirate Bay quietly shut down without subjecting itself to the expense and publicity associated with a lawsuit against its longtime nemesis,” Bridy writes.


    However, more than a year has passed and the proposed arbitration scheme appears to have vanished.

    The Domain Name Association’s Healthy Domains Initiative
    is still alive and taking proactive steps against abuse, but the copyright arbitration proposal has been removed from the earlier document.

    So what’s going on here? As it turns out, many prominent players in the domain name industry felt that the copyright arbitration plans went a step too far.

    Registries and registrars believe it’s their role to help the public set up domain names and manage DNS entries, but they don’t want to take an active role as copyright enforcers of content they don’t ‘host’.

    “It was really strongly pointed out to the working group that the hosting services are not necessarily in the same division or even same company, and that such things are entirely outside of the registration process,” Jothan Frakes, Domain Name Association’s Executive Director, informs TorrentFreak.

    “The registry or registrar thus are really not part of that content hosting process, and injecting them into that process or putting registrar or registry in the role (and costs and potential legal exposure) of content policing,” he adds.

    That said, under the Healthy Domain Initiative, these companies do take action against domain names with other problematic content. This includes domains pointing to “rogue” pharmacies and child abuse.

    Many registrars and registries clearly felt that the copyright arbitration plan went too far though.

    The Public Internet Registry (PIR) shares this observation. The organization’s general counsel
    previously said that they are not happy with The Pirate Bay’s presence on an .org domain, and that it’s a prime candidate to be removed under the right conditions.

    However, PIR is not happy with initiatives such as the MPAA’s trusted notifier scheme and after discussions with other stakeholders, it felt that the copyright arbitration plan lacks support as well.

    This means that PIR will not implement SCADR, despite repeated calls from rightsholders and governments to engage registrars and registries in potential content regulation.

    “Public Interest Registry is an advocate for a free, open, safe and secure internet. To that end, we believe that any effort to mitigate content-related abuses should be tightly circumscribed and keenly focused on fostering these principles and ensuring due process,” PIR informs TorrentFreak.

    And so ThePirateBay.org and many other domains are safe, for now.

    The decision to remove the arbitration plans obviously comes as a huge disappointment to copyright industry groups such as the MPAA and RIAA. While they can still take action against domain names, they will have to go to court instead.

    Source: Torrentfreak.com

  19. #159
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Today
    Posts
    4,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    Piracy Debt Collectors Back Off After Massive Backlash in Finland

    Opponents of copyright trolling efforts in Finland scored a major victory last week. A local debt collection company, which came under fire after going after individuals with unpaid settlement letters, has announced that it has withdrawn from the piracy debt collection business.

    For more than a decade, alleged file-sharers around the world have been pressured to pay significant settlement fees.

    These so-called copyright-trolling efforts are fairly straightforward. Copyright holders obtain a list of ‘pirating’ IP-addresses and then request a subpoena from the court, compelling ISPs to hand over the associated customer data.

    In recent years, several news reports have appeared on these cases in the US, Canada, Sweden, Denmark and elsewhere. In Finland, they have been a common sight since 2013.

    Adultia is one of the companies that’s active in the Nordic country which, as its name suggests, deals with adult content. Helped by the Cyprus-based company M.I.C.M, it obtained personal details of thousands of Finnish subscribers, asking them to pay up, or face legal action.

    At the start of this year, the company appeared to have halted its practices. No new letters were being reported, which was carefully celebrated as a win by copyright troll opponents, many of whom are active in the local
    MuroBBS community.

    However, the excitement didn’t last as the letters returned after a few months, albeit in a different form.

    At the end of September, several people who were previously targeted by Adultia started to receive
    new letters. While the accusations and details were the same as before, they were sent by KTC Finland Oy this time, which is a local debt collection agency.


    The letters were reported in the MuroBBS forum where they raised eyebrows. According to several activists, these “debt collection bills” were not lawful, as the earlier letters from Adultia were not official debts, but accusations.

    In response, several opponents helped to draft
    template response letters, accusing the debt collecting company of breaking the rules. These were sent to the debt collection outfit, as well as government officials.

    After a few weeks, this had the desired effect. Late last month, Timo Korhonen, chief investigator of Finland’s Regional State Administrative Agencies (AVI) in Finland, wrote
    a post on MuroBBS stating that KTC’s actions were now under investigation.

    AVI’s involvement has weight as it ensures that companies, including debt collectors, follow local rules and regulations. In case of severe violations, it also has the power to revoke licenses of debt collectors.

    The pressure was building, as AVI’s involvement was also picked up by the local news site
    Tivi and Ilta-Sanomat. Last week, KTC announced that it will withdraw from the copyright debt collection business.

    “Because of the widespread attention, we have decided to stop collecting these debts. Because of our high standards, we are now concentrating on serving our other customers and thus we leave control over these copyright matters to companies that are specialized in it,” KTC writes on its website.

    KTC maintains that its practices are in accordance with the law and encourages people who received a legitimate demand to pay. However, no new letters will go out.

    While the anti-trolling activists at MuroBBS see this decision as a clear win, they hope that AVI’s investigation will pay off, noting that copyright trolling remains a problem. Law firm Hedman Partners is reportedly still active, for example, using the court to go after alleged pirates.

    TorrentFreak spoke to activist ‘Don MC’ who notes that details behind 200,000 IP-addresses have already been handed out. While there are signs the court is more reserved now when it comes to these cases, copyright trolling remains a problem.

    “Lately, and perhaps even by the influence of the civil activists on the MuroBBS board, the Market Court has tightened its criteria and no longer hands out these addresses en masse,” Don MC explains.

    “The MuroBBS community is working hard to end copyright trolling in Finland once and for all. The fight against the trolls will hopefully go on until the last single troll is weeded out.”

    Source: Torrentfreak.com

  20. #160
    Amias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Today
    Posts
    4,645
    Post Thanks / Like
    ‘Pirate’ Set-Top Boxes Used By 45% of Online Thai Consumers

    According to a study commissioned by the Asia Video Industry Association’s Coalition Against Piracy (CAP), 45% of Internet-connected, online consumers in Thailand use a set-top box configured for piracy. CAP, which counts the MPA and other large media companies as members, reports that more than two in three of these consumers cancel paid subscriptions as a result.

    This morning, the Asia Video Industry Association’s (AVIA) Coalition Against Piracy (CAP), which represents the interests of groups including
    the MPA and other major companies, revealed the results of a commissioned YouGov survey.

    “In a recent study of the content viewing behavior of Thai consumers, it was revealed that 45% of consumers use a TV box which can be used to stream pirated television and video content,” CAP writes.

    “These TV boxes, also known as Illicit Streaming Devices (ISDs), allow users to access hundreds of pirated television channels and video-on-demand content, usually with a low annual fee.”

    In the above paragraph, the precise definition of “consumer” isn’t particularly clear. Also, the use of the phrase “can be used” is open to ambiguity. TorrentFreak spoke with Neil Gane, General Manager of CAP, who was happy to clarify on both fronts.

    “The survey focused on Internet-connected/online consumers. [T]he survey also included consumers who are online and yet don’t view video content, as all respondents were given the option to select ‘Not applicable – I don’t watch television and video content’,” Gain explained.

    Gane further clarified that the 45% of consumers does not include users who use general “piracy-capable” devices such as computers, laptops, mobile phones, or Firestick/Chromecast dongles etc.

    CAP’s General Manager added that while most devices “can be used” to stream pirated content, the survey was “solely focused on TV boxes pre-loaded with infringing app(s), which by definition would make them illicit streaming devices (ISDs).”

    Examples of ‘pirate applications’ found on such devices include Mango TV, HD Playbox, and U Play, which provide access to streaming movies and TV shows, mainly on Android.

    With the details established, the claims of the effects of piracy-enabled devices are more easily digested. CAP says that of the 45% of consumers who bought such a device, “more than two in three (69%) stated that they canceled all or some of their subscriptions to legal pay TV services.”

    The YouGov research also established that younger people are attracted to piracy-configured devices. They are particularly popular among 18 to 24-year-olds, “with more than three in four (77%) canceling legitimate subscription services as a result of owning ISDs, especially international online subscriptions (40%).”

    Of course, no recent anti-piracy announcement would be complete without claims about malware running riot.

    “The damage that piracy does to the creative industries is without dispute,” Gane explains.

    “However, the damage done to consumers themselves, because of the nexus between content piracy and malware, is only beginning to be recognized. Piracy websites and applications typically have a ‘click happy’ user base, and, as such, are being used more and more as clickbait to distribute malware.”

    There is little doubt that many users of pirate websites are indeed “click happy” in their quest for free content and that can lead them into trouble. However, we’ve covered malware issues before (specifically in
    respect of so-called “Kodi Boxes”) and found nothing to suggest that there is a significant risk to consumers.

    Of course, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a risk with other software pre-installed on set-top boxes – it’s a computer after all, and all such devices are vulnerable to infection. That means that as a minimum, all users should consider running anti-virus software on all devices capable of doing so.

    That being said, set-top boxes are isolated machines that rarely carry much of value to malware distributors. Most people don’t browse on these machines, send email, or enter any personal or banking information. There is always some risk involved, but in the set-top box environment, it’s almost certainly minimized.

    Speaking with TF, Neil Gane said that the study wasn’t related to malware but he stands by his references to the “piracy/malware nexus”. He also pointed us to a
    September 2018 EU report that found that trojans and malware can be found on pirate sites, leading to “not only financial losses, but also theft of personal data and other risks of unwanted access and control.”

    While that’s true, the same report also stated that copyright-infringing websites and streaming services are not normally considered to be dominant sources of malware.

    Source: Torrentfreak.com

Page 8 of 28 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Shinning | TSH | General | News Thread
    By Amias in forum BitTorrent News
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 12-04-2019, 09:24 PM
  2. TorrentLeech | TL | General | News Thread
    By Amias in forum BitTorrent News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-04-2019, 08:39 PM
  3. Lesaloonv2.0 | LS | General | News Thread
    By Amias in forum BitTorrent News
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 26-01-2019, 05:40 PM
  4. ScanBytes | SCB | General | News Thread
    By Amias in forum BitTorrent News
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 25-12-2018, 09:56 AM
  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
  •