Two decades ago, the music industry was presented with an unprecedented threat. Napster made it possible for the public at large to share tracks with people they didn’t have to meet in person.

While sharing was already commonplace on bulletin boards and IRC, Napster opened it up to an audience of millions.

In the years that followed, torrent sites, download portals, and other pirate services only made things worse. To counter this threat the music industry began filing lawsuits and lobbied for modern anti-piracy laws, which France was one of the first countries to adopt.

Ten years ago the French Government approved the HADOPI law. Among other things, it included a graduated response system where Internet subscribers face fines and even criminal convictions if they get caught repeatedly.

According to initial studies, the legislation wasn’t very effective. However, a new paper set to be published in a forthcoming issue of the academic journal Information, Economics and Policy, sings a different tune.

To measure the impact of Hadopi on music consumption, KU Leuven researcher Ruben Savelkoul analyzed music sales in France during the years following the introduction of the law and compared that data with sales in Belgium and the Netherlands.

The research specifically looks at digital download purchases during the early years of Hadopi. The results, shared in an article titled “Superstars vs the Long Tail”, shine an interesting light on the potential impact the anti-piracy law had during this time.

One of the main findings is that Hadopi had a positive effect on the sales of digital music tracks in France compared to the two control countries. This effect was the strongest for popular artists.

In addition, the findings suggest that the effect of Hadopi on sales decreased over time, except for bigger artists.

“The introduction of the Hadopi anti-piracy law in France had a positive effect on sales for all artists, superstars as well as artists lower in the sales distribution,” Savelkoul writes.

“The effect is stronger for superstars, suggesting that smaller or niche artists gain exposure from illegal downloading, partly offsetting the negative substitution effect on sales,” he adds.

The weaker effect on smaller artists suggests that these may also see some benefits from piracy. For example, because piracy allows music fans to discover new content more easily.

This leads to the second hypothesis tested by Savelkoul. Did the anti-piracy measures lead to a reduction in variation when it comes to music consumption? This indeed turned out to be the case.

“We found that in the absence of piracy, consumers tend to concentrate more on genre and style,” Savelkoul writes.

The researcher suggests that piracy makes it easier to discover newer music. As a result, people consume more different types of music. Stricter anti-piracy measures limit this effect and as a result music fans buy more ‘popular’ music.

“In absence of the possibility to sample ‘adventurous’ music, consumers might not be willing to pay and purchase these music items to discover its quality and instead opt for ‘safer’ purchases, thus consuming less variety,” Savelkoul notes.

Overall, the findings suggest that stricter anti-piracy measures can positively impact digital sales revenue. At the same time, however, they decrease variation in music consumption.

While these are intriguing findings, the paper’s author cautions against generalizing the results. The findings only cover a relatively short period of a few years. In the long run, the effect may be different.

In addition, the research only looks at digital music sales. It’s unclear what the effect is on touring revenue for example. Related research has found that revenue from live performances is growing for smaller artists and Savelkoul suggests that piracy may have a net positive effect for this group.

Finally, it’s worth noting that the music industry has changed quite a bit since the introduction of Hadopi. Streaming subscriptions are now the main digital revenue source, which has made it easier for consumers to discover new content. As such, the ‘discovery’ benefit of piracy may not be the same today.

—

A copy of the article titled “Superstars vs the Long Tail: How Does Music Piracy Affect Digital Song Sales for Different Segments of the Industry?” can be found behind a paywall.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Source link

Earlier this week we reported on a notable finding. For some reason, the two most active copyright litigants in the US had stopped filing new lawsuits in federal courts.

Instead of seeing hundreds of new cases each month targeting alleged BitTorrent pirates, there were none.

While the reason for this hiatus is unknown, we can now confirm that at least one of the companies hasn’t halted its efforts at all. Instead, it changed the venue, which isn’t without controversy.

In the U.S, copyright-related court cases are exclusively a matter of federal law, which is something every first-year law student knows. You can’t bring a copyright suit in state court, period. However, that’s exactly where Strike 3 has moved.

After filing over 1,000 cases in federal courts earlier this year, the adult entertainment company moved its activities to a Florida state court. In recent weeks, it has filed more than a dozen new cases.

Although these cases relate to copyright infringement, Strike 3 submits them as a complaint for “a pure bill discovery.” This essentially means that it asks the court to give it the right to figure out who the defendants are.

In this case, this means a subpoena directed at ISPs to identify the account holder that’s linked to the allegedly infringing IP-addresses. This tactic provides the same result as going through a federal court and allows Strike 3 to demand settlements as well.

While the number of cases in state court is relatively modest, these cases target a substantially higher number of defendants per case. That’s also one of the main advantages. By filing a single case with dozens or hundreds of defendants, the filing fee per defendant is very low.

In federal court, the company generally targets one defendant per complaint, which is far more expensive. And while Strike 3 mentions that it is requesting the information for a subsequent copyright lawsuit, it will likely try to get a settlement first.

Another advantage is that the company doesn’t have to deal with the federal courts that are increasingly reluctant to grant discovery. Just a few weeks ago, Strike 3 was denied a subpoena, for example.

The question is whether this shortcut is appropriate. While we have seen it being used in Florida a few years ago, it certainly isn’t common. And this time there is pushback as well.

TorrentFreak spoke to several attorneys who represent defendants in these cases. They believe that Strike 3 is wrong to use the state court for this purpose. However, in several cases, the Miami-Dade County Court has already granted subpoenas against a variety of ISPs, including AT&T and Comcast.

Attorney Jeffrey Antonelli and his firm Antonelli Law‘s local counsel Steven Robert Kozlowski objected to these subpoenas on behalf of several defendants. In his motion to quash he highlights a variety of problems, including the earlier observation that copyright cases don’t belong in a state court.

“This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the copyright claims at issue in the lawsuit which the subpoena to Comcast is premised upon. Federal courts have original and exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal copyright law,” the motion reads.

Another problem is that the purpose of the “pure bill of discovery” is to obtain facts or information a defendant has. However, the targeted ISPs are not defendants in these cases.

Finally, the motions highlight that the IP-addresses may not even be linked to Florida, where the court is based. Strike 3 should have known this, as they always disclose the location in federal court. However, they may have omitted it on purpose, the defense argues.

“In fact, Plaintiff’s failure to allege that Defendant has sufficient contacts with the state of Florida or is a Florida resident is likely a purposeful omission as Defendant is not a resident of Florida,” the motion to quash reads, showing that the IP-address is linked to Minnesota.

TorrentFreak spoke to Florida-based attorney Cynthia Conlin who has dealt with these ‘trolling’ lawsuits, both in federal and state court. She believes that Strike 3 has moved its efforts to the Miami-Dade County court in an attempt to save costs.

“The most obvious advantage in filing a multi-doe case is economic. Strike 3 need only pay a single filing fee to obtain identifying information for several dozen defendants, as opposed to $400 for each single-doe federal lawsuit,” Conlin says.

In federal courts, these cases typically include one defendant. So filing 50 cases would cost $20,000 in filing fees alone. In the recent state court cases, all defendants are grouped in a single case, which is much cheaper.

“By filing multi-doe suits, Strike 3 is increasing its odds of receiving settlements exponentially. So far it has filed 17 lawsuits in Miami-Dade County, and counting,” Conlin notes.

While Conlin doesn’t believe that these cases are allowed in state courts, judges often sign off on the subpoenas since they are not well-versed in copyright litigation. This is a loophole Strike 3 tried to exploit.

“Strike 3 would not be able to get away with filing a multi-doe lawsuit in federal court. Mass-doe cases have been done before in many federal jurisdictions, and the federal courts will no longer allow them. State court is the only place Strike 3 can get away with it,” she says.

This isn’t the first time this maneuver has been carried out. A few other companies have done so and some argue that it’s a win-win for all, as it can result in lower settlements as well.

Conlin and other defense attorneys don’t buy that and will continue to file motions to quash. At the time of writing, the Miami-Dade County Court has yet to rule on these subpoenas.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Source link

Earlier this week, black clouds began to form over the passionate iOS jailbreaking community. Tolerated by Apple through gritted teeth due to legal protection under the DMCA, the company took the unusual step of sending a DMCA notice targeting a developer’s tweet containing an encryption key.

While that tweet was later restored, the takedown came as a complete surprise and the knock-on effect from this unsettling act would set the scene for the company getting blamed for additional similar acts, this time on Reddit.

In the wake of the Twitter action, a moderator of the /r/jailbreak sub-Reddit revealed that Reddit’s legal team had removed five posts detailing iOS jailbreak releases checkra1n and unc0ver. All of the posts were deleted by Reddit’s admins after receiving a DMCA notice, ostensibly sent by Apple.

What followed was an hours-long information blackout, during which /r/jailbreak’s moderators sought but failed to obtain information from Reddit’s admins. With a credible fear that more notices could be filed and as a result label /r/jailbreak as a repeat offender under the DMCA, its moderators put the forum into lockdown.

Right from the very beginning there was no clear proof that Apple had sent any DMCA notices to Reddit, despite news headlines blaming the tech company for going to war against jailbreakers. It now transpires that waiting for proof would’ve been a more prudent option.

As revealed by checkra1n development team member ‘qwertyoruiopz’, the notice that targeted his project was actually a fake.

Update: The DMCA takedown that took the checka1n post down is fake.

— qwertyoruiop (@qwertyoruiopz) December 12, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

And, according to fellow developer ‘axi0mX’, the fake notice wasn’t particularly well constructed either.

“We reviewed it and confirmed that it was someone impersonating Apple. It was not sent from their law firm, which is Kilpatrick Townsend. There are issues with grammar and spelling,” he revealed.

“This notice was obviously not submitted in good faith, and it was not done by someone authorized to represent Apple. Not cool. They could be sued for damages or face criminal charges for perjury.”

Being sued for sending a fake notice sounds like a reasonable solution in practice but history tells us, one particularly notable case aside, that is unlikely to happen. However, it’s clear that more can be done to mitigate the effects of malicious takedowns, starting with more transparency from Reddit’s admins.

While the moderators of /r/jailbreak knew about the complaints early on, they were given no information about who sent them or on what basis. This meant that the people against whom the complaints were made weren’t in a position to counter them, at least with knowledge on their side.

“My personal take on all this is that this should provide plenty of food of thought about the state of copyright laws in the US. A site like Reddit risks losing legal safe harbor protections if they don’t immediately act on such notices,” qwertyoruiopz says.

“Not sharing the notices by default is however very bad policy on Reddit’s end; I would even call this a vulnerability. It allows for nefarious parties to create false-flag takedowns that spark can infighting and has chilling effects (albeit temporary) on non-infringing content.”

There can be little doubt that Reddit takes its DMCA obligations very seriously, so it could be argued that taking down the posts in response to a complaint was the safest legal option. However, if a cursory review of the notices by those targeted revealed clear fraud within minutes, there is a very good case for those notices being shared quickly to ensure that the fraudulent notices don’t have the desired effect.

While Reddit has shown no signs of sharing DMCA notices with the Lumen Database recently, quickly sharing them with those who have allegedly infringed would be a good first step.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Source link

To most users of mobile computing devices such as phones and tablets, they exist to be used however the consumer sees fit. However, the majority are restricted to prevent the adventurous from doing whatever they like with their own hardware.

To bypass these restrictions, users can utilize a so-called jailbreak tool. These unlock the digital handcuffs deployed on a device and grant additional freedoms that aren’t available as standard. As such, they are popular with modders who enjoy customizing their hardware with new features that otherwise wouldn’t exist.

Since it is viewed as one of the most restrictive manufacturers, Apple hardware and software face almost continual ‘attacks’ from people wanting to jailbreak its devices. There are many communities online dedicated to this scene, including Reddit’s 462,000-member /r/jailbreak forum.

Yesterday, however, chaos reigned after Reddit’s legal team received multiple DMCA notices against a number of threads detailing a pair of prominent jailbreak tools – Checkra1n and UNc0ver.

“Reddit Legal have removed 5 posts (all release posts) for checkra1n and unc0ver. We don’t know what exactly was the copyright about. Admins never told us, we just saw their actions in our mod log,” a moderator explained.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, many linked the issues facing /r/jailbreak to an earlier drama on Twitter when an iOS hacker called S1guza published an Apple decryption key that led to his tweet being taken down following a DMCA notice. It took a few hours but the tweet was ultimately reinstated last evening. No specific reasons were given for taking it down, and none were provided for putting it back up.

iPhone11,8 17C5053a sepi 9f974f1788e615700fec73006cc2e6b533b0c6c2b8cf653bdbd347bc1897bdd66b11815f036e94c951250c4dda916c00

— Siguza (@s1guza) December 8, 2019

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The Twitter takedown was sent by Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, a company that has acted on Apple’s behalf in the past. The notice itself, published on the Lumen Database thanks to Twitter, also provides no useful details as to why the tweet was targeted.

Since Apple was behind the takedown on Twitter and the most obvious culprit in respect of the DMCA takedowns on Reddit, many fingers were pointed towards the Cupertino-based company. However, despite the best efforts of the moderators on /r/jailbreak, Reddit’s admins would not provide the necessary information to identify who filed the DMCA notices or on what grounds.

With uncertainty apparently the order of the day, moderators of the discussion forum took the drastic decision to put their platform into lockdown.

“Locking down the subreddit to prevent new threads is one of the ‘standard’ responses moderators take to show the admins that the mod team isn’t playing, and that they are serious and ready to remedy the issue,” a post from the mods reads.

“Too many DMCA notices eventually end up with a warn and a ban (or just a ban) from the admins to whatever subreddit these notices are being sent to.”

While the DMCA notices in themselves are clearly the biggest issue here, unlike Twitter and Google, for example, Reddit does not routinely share DMCA notices it receives with an external database such as Lumen. If it did, the additional transparency would perhaps help to shine some light on the topic and prevent heavy self-imposed actions, such as the voluntary lockdown of the jailbreak sub.

Moderators report that Reddit’s admins were initially unresponsive to requests for information and that a database that tracks DMCA notices sent to Reddit didn’t provide any helpful details on the sender of the notices.

Last evening, however, one of the affected jailbreak developers ‘qwertyoruiopz’
announced on Twitter that things were some way to being resolved on Reddit and the sub had been taken out of ‘lockdown mode‘.

Soon after, a welcome response from Reddit’s admins was published, effectively signaling the all-clear.

While the message was well-received, /r/jailbreak shouldn’t have been obliged to take such serious action to preserve its existence. The jailbreaking of iOS devices is considered legal in the US and the DMCA notices filed against Reddit clearly caught everyone by surprise.

It remains unknown whether they were indeed sent by Apple so the possibility remains that they were sent by some kind of imposter, trying to unsettle the community. Nevertheless, it is good news that all complaints have been lifted due to the claims being invalid, as per Reddit’s admins.

Without transparency from Reddit, however, the true nature of what happened is likely to remain a mystery. That being said, the moderators of /r/jailbreak deserve a big pat on the back for taking decisive action, quickly. Things could have really spiraled out of control but by showing good intent early on, things were brought back into line relatively quickly.

Now, let’s see those notices to determine who sent them, and why.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Source link

That Google knows every detail of what its users search for is no secret – after all, the company itself processes all of the requests.

Armed with this data, Google publishes its annual ‘Year in Search‘ report, the latest of which appeared yesterday. From our perspective, there were very few – if any – piracy-related aspects to report, something which should be encouraging to rightsholders.

However, after the BBC published its take on Google’s UK search statistics, noting that several questions in the “How to” category were directed at how to watch sports events and TV shows, the Federation Against Copyright Theft took to Twitter to issue a warning.

“Whether it’s a re-stream on social media, a piracy site, or using a TV-connected device, avoiding official providers to access content is illegal,” FACT wrote, linking to the BBC article.

Of course, it is FACT’s job to draw attention to such things but we wondered, given that Google is quite specific about the top titles searched for in 2019, whether Google’s search results were worthy of particular panic. Or, indeed, whether “where to watch” searches should always be considered dangerous and piracy related. But first, some background.

Over the past several years, copyright holders and anti-piracy groups have regularly complained that Google and other search engines help people find content online in a way that prioritizes pirated over legitimate content.

That isn’t the company’s intention, of course, but there have been numerous instances of pirate sites appearing higher in searches than those offering licensed content. In the UK, Google and various industry players agreed to tackle this and similar issues with the signing of a voluntary anti-piracy agreement back in 2017.

So, when placed alongside these top “how to” searches, has it worked?

#1: How to watch Champions League Final

This search clearly related to the match between Tottenham Hotspur and Liverpool from which the latter emerged victorious, two goals to nil. However, the related Google search is particularly interesting since all of the top results showed users how to watch the match for free.

While that might sound like a cause for concern, these results linked exclusively to completely legal streams offered via established broadcasters. Clearly, the incentive to pirate had been mostly eliminated by giving consumers what they want.

#2: How to watch Game of Thrones

As one of the most popular shows in living memory, it’s no surprise that Game of Thrones appears in Google’s top search lists for the UK. In past years, this kind of search would’ve likely displayed ‘pirate’ results prominently but that is no longer the case. In our tests we had to go through several pages of Google results with links to either buy the show or articles detailing how to watch the show legally first. Pirate results were not prominent.

#5: How to watch KSI vs. Logan

Given the controversy surrounding this pair of YouTube celebrities, searches on how to watch the fight were bound to score highly. However, a search for the fight yet again yielded pages and pages of legitimate sources or articles detailing how to access the bout legally.

#10: How to watch Chernobyl

The results displayed following a “where to watch Chernobyl” search are very similar to those that are returned following a similar Game of Thrones query. One has to skip through pages and pages of legitimate results to find any pirate sources and, on the way, the emphasis to go legal is clear.

The legal choices, as they appear in Google’s results, are as follows: YouTube, Google Play, Amazon, NowTV, HBO, Sky, Hulu, iTunes, Showmax, DirectTV, HBONordic, HBOGo, and Verizon. Admittedly, not all of those are available to UK users, but that’s four pages deep into the results and not one pirate link in sight.

Conclusion

While this is a very limited sample, there does appear to have been a notable change in the way that Google displays its results in the UK when faced with a basic query of “where to watch X”. There is now a pretty clear bias towards legitimate sources in results presented in the first few pages.

Of course, those that wish to refine their searches to actively seek out pirated content will have more immediate success, that’s the way searches work. However, it’s now more difficult to argue that users will be diverted to pirated sources when they’re seeking out legal options, at least for the samples listed above.

It’s worth noting, however, that pirate users’ viewing habits are probably shifting. There is now less reliance on search engines and more emphasis on apps and tools that are designed to produce infringing results by default, which is the exact opposite of what Google offers in respect of the above.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Source link