A year ago “Article 13” was only known to a select audience with a particular interest in copyright issues.
Today, EU’s copyright reform proposals and the potential ‘Internet filters’ have gone mainstream.
Last September the European Parliament backed the controversial Article 13 plans. This set in motion a round of trilogue negotiations during which the final text would be drawn up.
Initially, the last negotiation round was scheduled for last December, but that was later postponed to today. However, there are no negotiations today either.
Last Friday, EU members voted on the negotiating mandate for the Council. With 11 countries voting against a compromise position on Article 13 and Article 11, they failed to reach an agreement.
As a result, today’s round of final negotiations was canceled. This doesn’t mean that the controversial proposals will be shelved, but it creates another delay. And as time passes, opposition only seems to grow.
Early on, most protests came from the public at large and activist groups who believe that Article 13 will lead to broad upload filters, possibly censoring fair use content.
However, as lawmakers tried to seek compromises, various rightsholders were no longer happy and retracted their support as well. This includes movie and TV-companies, as well as music groups, which initially backed the proposal.
Copyright holders are still in favor of the original Article 13 text, but they believe that the latest proposals are watered down to a degree where they might be worse off than before.
The original Article 13 opponents, meanwhile, argue that it’s best to remove the article from the broader copyright reform proposals entirely and to do the same with Article 11, also known as the ‘link tax.’
Julia Reda, Member of the European Parliament for the Pirate Party, hopes for the latter.
The outcome of today’s Council vote also shows that public awareness of the copyright reform is having an effect, Reda writes.
“Keeping up the pressure in the coming weeks will be more important than ever to make sure that the most dangerous elements of the new copyright proposal will be rejected,” she adds.
While Article 13 is not off the table, it appears that the compromise strategy of EU lawmakers isn’t helping. And after today’s postponed vote, there will likely be more protests and lobbying efforts from both sides.
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/fea-stop.jpg2501200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-01-21 18:47:202019-01-21 18:47:20Copyright Negotiations Canceled As ‘Article 13’ Opposition Rises
IPFS, short for InterPlanetary File System, has been around for a few years now.
While the name sounds alien to most people, it has a growing userbase among the tech-savvy.
In short, IPFS is a decentralized network where users make files available among each other. If a website uses IPFS, it is served by a “swarm” of people, much like BitTorrent users do when a file is shared.
The advantage of this system is that websites can become completely decentralized. If a website or other resource is hosted with IPFS, it remains accessible as long as the computer of one user who “pinned” it remains online.
The advantages of IPFS are clear. It allows archivists, content creators, researchers, and many others to distribute large volumes of data over the Internet. It’s censorship resistant and not vulnerable to regular hosting outages.
It’salso a perfect match for ‘pirate’ sites. The decentralized nature makes IPFS sites virtually impossible to shut down. This aspect was already highlighted by Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde, back in 2016.
“IPFS is really good and if everyone started using that instead it would be great. It would be working perfectly with less centralization. The problem is that the big sites like TPB and KAT are not really good at using new technology,” Sunde said.
KAT was shut down shortly after Sunde commented and while The Pirate Bay remains online, it now suffers more downtime than ever. Still, none of the major pirate sites have shown an interest in IPFS thus far.
There are others who’ve taken up this challenge though. A developer going by the handle ‘Urban Guacamole’ recently launched Torrent-Paradise, a torrent index which is powered with IPFS.
“I feel like decentralizing search is the natural next step in the evolution of the torrent ecosystem. File sharing keeps moving in the direction of more and more decentralization, eliminating one single point of failure after another,” he informs TF.
To start the site Torrent-Paradise used a copy of The Pirate Bay database. This was transformed into a searchable index with help from ipfsearch.xyz and the site’s operator has a DHT crawler which, at the moment, adds approximately 20,000 new torrents per day.
This all sounds positive but there are also some drawbacks.
One of the main hurdles is that IPFS has to be installed and configured if you want to become a node. This is a relatively easy process, but the average web user may not be familiar with using a command line to set it up, which is a requirement.
However, there are also IPFS gateways available. Cloudflare, for example, introduced one recently. This allows anyone to access sites such as Torrent-Paradise through a custom URL, but these people don’t help to share the site.
Another downside is that the static index which the site relies on is only updated once a day. This isn’t a technical restriction, but more a practical one. In theory, it could be updated in near real-time.
At the moment there’s both a regular Torrent-Paradise website, accessible to all, as well as an IPFS version which will remain ad-free. The site itself is fairly basic, but the real point of it is to showcase the power of decentralization.
The decentralization of file-sharing has been ongoing for decades. The BitTorrent protocol is decentralized, for example. And The Pirate Bay moved this further by removing its tracker and torrents, relying on DHT and magnet links instead.
“Decentralizing torrent search is next,” Urban Guacamole says, who believes that IPFS could become more common among torrent sites in the future.
Torrent-Paradise’s operator sees ‘availability’ as one of the main advantages. In this case, that goes hand in hand with being censorship resistant.
“Because each update of Torrent Paradise is an IPFS hash, it is impossible for anyone, including me, to take down the site. As long as there’s someone pinning it (the IPFS equivalent of seeding), the site will be available.”
Since the site started out as a Pirate Bay copy, rightsholders may eventually come in with complaints. While the site will comply with DMCA notices, it can’t control the hashes that are already shared in the network.
For the time being, Urban Guacamole plans to continue his work on the site. With a free domain name and Cloudflare support, it only costs roughly $4 a month, so the cost is not a factor.
Perhaps something for The Pirate Bay to consider?
“It most definitely would help them keep their site available when their servers are down,” Urban Guacamole says.
Put on your protective irony suits folks, you’re definitely going to need them. Facepalming is also allowed, especially if accompanied by a slow head-shake.
With the downfall of Android-based apps like TerrariumTV, pirates everywhere are looking for the next big thing. Lots of content in a Netflix-style interface is the order of the day, and there is no shortage of contenders.
One player gaining traction with pirates is TVZion. The Android-based software looks good, performs well, and is a perfect fit for those looking to access all the latest movies and TV shows.
TVZion – Pretty and functional
The standard version of TVZion is free and supported by ads. There is a ‘pro’ version too which is advertised as “100% Ad free, premium features, priority requests and more.” Being in the ‘club’, however, comes at a price.
While some pirates are indeed happy to purchase the type of service detailed below (and indeed subscribe to the likes of Netflix and Spotify), the operator of TVZion appears exasperated by a growing number of users who want pro features at zero cost.
It’s cheap – but some people want cheaper
Such a thing is indeed an option, via modded TVZion APK files that are widely available and being promoted heavily by YouTubers. Trouble is, this apparent freeloading is grinding the dev’s gears while simultaneously undermining his product.
“So yesterday I had to take down the server momentarily to deploy yet another optimization. Upon checking logs now it’s safe to say about 35% users are mod users. Thanks to mindless youtubers, they are only linking to the modded versions,” he wrote on Reddit this week.
“Needless to say a server based app will not sustain this way because eventually I will run out of optimizations and server rent. So I am thinking of a countermeasure to deter users from wanting to use the modded version and also deter youtubers to linking to one.”
Presuming these freeloaders can be identified, the simplest method to end their fun would be to ban them from the service but according to the developer, he’s “looking for something more than that”, something that will act as a deterrent to prevent people using modded APKs altogether.
If this sounds like the start of an anti-piracy brainstorming session, hold onto your hats folks – this one is something special. Here are the options for punishing ‘illegal’ pro version users, as suggested by the developer:
Log mod users for Ip addresses, timestamps and contents accessed and keep this information to be used as I see fit if it ever comes to that
Crypto mining – Mine crypto currency in the background. From my experience this’ll only overwork the device for very little money
Use device as proxy – This will essentially turn their device into a proxy server which will be rented to others (NOT A FAN OF THIS)
“Everything else that comes in my mind is rather more malicious so no point exploring that. The most graceful way to deal with this [in my opinion] is to simply let the user know that this is a mod app and now they are being logged. Let me know what do you think?” he added.
Even the most hardcore pirates in the world can’t fail to appreciate the irony here.
TVZion is an application that is designed to offer content that otherwise would cost a fee to access. Movie and TV studios all over the world are complaining that their stuff costs billions to make and pirates are undermining their business models. In some cases, these companies employ copyright trolls to log IP addresses with the aim of later punishing them.
And what we have here is a developer of a pirate application, complaining that his business model is being undermined by pirates, so the solutions should perhaps include logging their IP addresses with the aim of punishing them at a later point.
There can be no doubt that this developer has invested plenty of time and energy into what seems to be a very competent application that achieves its stated goals. That classic anti-piracy tactics are being discussed as a solution to protect revenues is ironic at best and mind-boggling at worst.
If we want to argue that the guy is justified in protecting his investment, we can do that. If we want to state he has every right to log the IP addresses of freeloaders taking his service for free, we can do that as well.
What we can’t do in parallel is criticize entertainment and anti-piracy companies for making the same case for logging infringers and taking subsequent action against them. Either taking other people’s content and monetizing it is fair game for all, or the entire house of cards comes tumbling down.
Although it’s impossible to say what is going on behind the scenes of the TVZion app, at least for now it appears that these suggestions haven’t been put into practice. Trouble is, once you talk about doing this kind of thing voluntarilyto save a business model, what happens when the authorities come calling and action is required to save a skin?
LibreELEC 9.0 (Leia) Beta 3 has finally arrived after a long gestation period. Based upon Kodi v18 RC5.2, the 9.0 Beta 3 release contains many changes and refinements to user experience and a complete overhaul of the underlying OS core to improve stability and extend hardware support. Kodi v18 also brings new features like Kodi Retroplayer and DRM support that (equipped with an appropriate add-on) allows Kodi to unofficially stream content from services like Netflix and Amazon.
Default firewall (iptables) with simple configurations for Home/Public networks
Updates are moved to their own menu, other options are cleaned up a little
Safe Mode boot when Kodi experiences startup problems
Changeable SSH passwords and a default firewall configuration have been added to combat the increasing number of HTPC installs that can be found on the public internet. The increase is partly due to simple maths; our userbase has grown so the number of users inappropriately exposing their HTPC to the internet has also grown. The static password for libreelec is present on most/all password dictionary lists so it’s important we start encouraging users to change it (the first-run wizard will prompt when SSH is enabled).
More people are using VPN services for privacy without realising this exposes SSH/SMB/Web services. To combat this problem we have added simple firewall configurations for Home/Public networks; the Home configuration blocks inbound connections from non-private networks, e.g. traffic from the Internet to the public IP address used with the VPN connection.
As the Kodi piracy scene continues to decline we have seen an increase in users with outdated add-ons that cause problems during upgrades so “Safe Mode” counts Kodi startup crashes. After five startup failures it intervenes with a default (clean) configuration and prominent warning so users know there is a problem – but still have a working GUI to troubleshoot from.
Retroplayer:
Kodi v18 brings initial support for retro gaming and the ability to play hundreds of retro games directly from within Kodi. We provide a large number of emulator cores from our add-on repo, but no games (bring your own) although there are a couple of open source test game add-ons (2048 etc.) in our repo. In this first iteration of Kodi retro gaming support the user interface can be a little confusing and we still need to write-up some HOWTO guides for the wiki. Kodi developers are working on a game database (for Kodi v19) which will make the process of managing and using game ROMs easier in the future.
DVB Drivers:
We now offer a larger range of DVB drivers (depending on your platform) to choose from. The “DVB drivers from the latest kernel” option also includes the majority of Hauppage drivers which have been recently upstreamed into the kernel, which is great to see!
Rockchip:
Despite the 8.95.1 release number our Rockchip releases remain in an Alpha state with limited support. The Kodi version is updated but there are no significant video/audio improvements to the Rockchip 4.4 kernel codebase – and none planned. Our work on Rockchip support has refocussed onto the Linux 4.20 kernel to use the modern kernel frameworks needed for the next-generation Kodi video pipeline. This work is progressing nicely, but it means the 4.4 codebase “is what it is” until a future kernel bump.
New Devices:
Amlogic
Khadas VIM(1) – requires a clean install if using current community images
Libre Computer Le Potato
Rockchip
96rocks ROCK960
ASUS Tinker Board
Firefly ROC-RK3328-CC
Khadas Edge
PINE64 ROCK64
PINE64 RockPro64
Popcorn Hour RockBox
Popcorn Hour Transformer
Rockchip Sapphire Board
Mqmaker MiQi
If you experience problems, please open an thread at our forum. You can also open an ticket at our issue tracker.
Every day millions of people post photos online, without approval from the rightsholder. This is particularly prevalent on social media platforms such as Facebook.
Many photographers don’t have the time or resources to go after these types of infringements, but some are clearly drawing a line in the sand.
This week, photographer Kristen Pierson filed a complaint against Facebook at a New York District Court. Pierson accuses the social media platform of hosting and displaying one of her works without permission.
Normally these issues are resolved with a DMCA takedown notice but in this case that didn’t work.
Last year, Pierson noticed that the Facebook account “Trusted Tech Tips” had used one of her works, a photo of Rhode Island politician Robert Nardolillo, without permission. When she requested Facebook to remove it, the company chose to leave it up instead.
“Hi-, Thanks for your report. Based on the information you’ve provided, it is not clear that the content you’ve reported infringes your copyright,” the Facebook representative wrote in reply.
“It appears that the content you reported is being used for the purposes of commentary or criticism. For this reason, we are unable to act on your report at this time.”
Facebook’s replyThe takedown notice was sent March last year and the post in question remains online at the time of writing, with the photo included. This prompted Pierson to file a complaint at a New York Federal Court this week accusing Facebook of copyright infringement.
According to the Rhode Island-based photographer, Facebook failed to comply with the takedown request and can’t rely on its safe harbor protection.
“Facebook did not comply with the DMCA procedure on taking the Photograph down. As a result, Facebook is not protected under the DMCA safe harbor as it failed to take down the Photograph from the Website,” the complaint reads.
The ‘infringing’ post (exhibit d)The short five-page complaint accuses Facebook of copyright infringement and Pierson requests compensation for the damages she suffered.
“Facebook infringed Plaintiff’s copyright in the Photograph by reproducing and publicly displaying the Photograph on the Website. Facebook is not, and has never been, licensed or otherwise authorized to reproduce, publically display, distribute and/or use the Photograph,” it reads.
The photographer is not new to these types of lawsuits. She has filed similar cases against other outlets such as Twitter. The latter case was eventually dismissed, likely after both parties reached an agreement.
In the present case, Pierson requests a trial by jury but it wouldn’t be a surprise if this matter is settled behind closed doors, away from the public eye.
—
A copy of the complaint against Facebook is available here (pdf).
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/photo.jpg2501200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-01-19 06:43:362019-01-19 06:43:36Facebook Sued For Refusing to Remove Copyrighted Photo
Since the turn of the decade, Austria has been grappling with the controversial issue of pirate site blocking.
While rights holders have long-insisted that blocking is an appropriate and proportionate response to large-scale infringement, local Internet service providers have remained unconvinced, despite many legal processes.
Last November, the Supreme Court finally ruled that The Pirate Bay and other “structurally-infringing” sites including 1337x.to can indeed be blocked, if rights holders have exhausted all other options. However, the decision wasn’t without complications.
The Telecom Single Market (TSM) Regulation established the principle of non-discriminatory traffic management in the EU. It does allow for the blocking of copyright-infringing websites but only when supported by a clear administrative or judicial decision.
However, rights holders have also written to ISPs in Austria demanding that they block sites that are potentially related to a blocked platform (such as a mirror or proxy) but aren’t specifically detailed in an official order.
Last January, this problem finally came to head when, after ‘voluntarily’ blocking several Pirate Bay clones, ISP T-Mobile reported itself to the Austrian Regulatory Authority for Broadcasting and Telecommunications (RTR) for a potential net neutrality breach. As reported by Tarnkappe, other providers including A1, Drei, Kabelplus, Liwest, and UPC later followed suit.
“The decision of the providers to self-disclose may seem surprising at first glance,” says Maximilian Schubert, Secretary General of Internet Service Providers Austria (ISPA).
“However, this self-disclosure will hopefully open the eyes of many people entrusted with the topic of how unclear and almost worrying the situation is in this country.”
At issue is whether local ISPs are obliged to block ‘pirate’ sites following an informal request from rights holders and in the absence of an official order. It now transpires, thanks to pressure from the ISPs, that they do not have to block following such requests.
Telecoms regulator Telecom Control Commission will now get involved when a block is requested which will lead to a supervisory process and a full review by the agency. Informal blocking of domains following a simple request from rights holders is therefore ruled out.
“From ISPA’s point of view, this has sent another clear signal that network blocking constitutes a serious infringement of fundamental rights,” Schubert says.
“To rely on an informal system of ‘bartering’ in such a sensitive matter, as the rights holders have requested, is simply incompatible with the principles of a modern constitutional state. It is now up to the legislator, while respecting the fundamental rights concerned, to find a solution that takes account of the different interests.”
Moving forward, ISPA says that ISPs want an “independent judicial body” to confirm in advance the legality of any blocking while ensuring that a minimum of time and resources are expended on the blocking process.
“In addition, users need to be able to clearly understand why they are being blocked and thus have the opportunity to fight the block directly at the crucial point. Furthermore, the providers must be compensated for their costs and protected against any claims of third parties,” ISPA concludes.
As part of Brazil’s Ministry of Justice, the Federal Police of Brazil (Polícia Federal) is an enforcement agency tasked with tackling a range of crimes.
In addition to drug trafficking and terrorism, the unit is responsible for disrupting organized crime, white-collar crime, and money laundering.
This week the agency announced the launch of ‘Operation Copyright’, an initiative designed to disrupt the sharing of pirated content in Brazil using BitTorrent.
Following a complaint from local anti-piracy group APDIF (Association for the Protection of the Intellectual Property Rights of the Phonographic Industry), in 2017 police launched an investigation into a US-hosted torrent site with an estimated 140,000 users and 9 million visits per year.
Local reports have not yet formally identified the site but sources indicate that a private tracker called Speed-Share, which is currently down, was the main target of the operation.
A video clip shared by the authorities shows a site with its branding blurred out but TorrentFreak can confirm that the style matches that of Speed-Share.
Image of Speed-Share.org (credit Globo/ Polícia Federal)
The operation spanned five states, with the Federal Police executing search and seizure warrants in Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Paraná, Espírito Santo and Goiás. Globo reports that police initially identified two people in São Paulo (the alleged founders and operators of the site) and from there an additional six people were interviewed.
“Each had a function. There are the operators, there are the moderators, there are the designers, there are the DJs. There is a whole hierarchy inside the site,” a police spokesperson said.
“Because of this, we are evaluating the effective participation of each and even to impute the crime of association or criminal organization, which are different crimes.”
While APDIF estimates that music sharing on the site cost their members more than US$10 million in lost revenues over the past nine years, that doesn’t account for other content indexed by the tracker including movies, TV shows, and games.
Despite the scale of the operation, it appears that none of the suspects were immediately arrested. They will be expected to answer to copyright infringement charges, however.
While it appears that Speed-Share was the main target, several other ‘pirate’ sites are also reported as being offline. It is not yet clear whether these were also targeted by the authorities or whether they have been taken offline as a precaution.
The Federal Police say they are working with authorities in the United States but it’s not yet clear whether any warrants have been carried out internationally.
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/tv-closeup-feat.jpg2501200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-01-18 00:41:162019-01-18 00:41:16Brazilian Police Shut Down Private Torrent Site in ‘Operation Copyright’
Over the years we’ve written numerous times about questionable copyright claims on YouTube.
This problem is far from new but more and more stories are emerging every week. Over the past days, a claim on a Star Wars fan film has caught a lot of attention.
The video in question was created by the popular Star Wars Theory channel, which published the first episode of the “Vader” fan film just before Christmas.
The channel is operated by Toos, a dedicated Star Wars fan, who made the video for like-minded fans. Aware of the sensitive stance rightsholders have regarding fan films, he reached out to Lucasfilm beforehand.
The company, which was the original copyright holder of the Star Wars franchise before it sold to Disney, said that Toos couldn’t monetize the project, nor could he crowdfund it. However, if he stuck to the rules it could continue. This meant that Toos paid for the production himself and published it without ads.
All seemed fine for the first weeks after the episode was put up. The video was viewed millions of times and received tens of thousands of likes. However, this week things changed.
Without prior notice, Warner/Chappell – which controls the rights to Star Wars’ music – moved in and claimed the video. While the fan film remains online, it’s now showing ads with the revenue going directly to the music publisher.
“They have claimed the whole movie because there is a piece in there that uses the rendition of The Imperial March,” Toos says.
This isn’t the original sound recording that was used in Star Wars, as Toos hired a composer to write a remake of the original theme music. However, according to Warner/Chappell, it’s a cover which they, apparently, want to be paid for.
Responding to the issue in a YouTube video, Toos says he’s disappointed. After being told that he can’t monetize the film, one of the rightsholders has moved in and monetized it instead.
“It’s not about the money, it’s the principle,” Toos says. “Someone from one of those companies went in there and manually claimed it. To me, that’s just very vindictive. It’s very rude.”
Soon after Toos published his response on the “Star Wars Theory” channel, it blew up. People directed much of their anger at Disney and characterized the copyright claim as clearly false.
False in this case is a matter of perspective. While non-commercial fan films are often allowed, the rightsholders can still claim it. Whether this claim is rightful or if it’s a fair use ultimately has to be decided in court.
Toos doesn’t want to take it that far. Following the public outrage, Warner/Chappell reached out to his network to indicate that it wouldn’t back down. This puts him in a tough spot.
Toos can easily dispute the claim. If Warner/Chappell uphold it, he can appeal again after which the music publisher has to file an official DMCA notice. This will then result in a strike on the channel and the video will be removed as well.
At that point, Toos can file a counter-notice. YouTube will then restore the video after ten days unless Warner/Chappel takes the matter to federal court. Not a very pleasant outlook, to say the least.
Warner/Chappel could easily win a potential lawsuit. They argue that the film’s music is based on the original composition of Star Wars themes, which is indeed the case. That the film is non-commercial doesn’t mean any use is fair use, there are other factors that play a role as well.
Toos prefers to let the issue go. He still plans to continue with the second episode, although he won’t use any Star Wars themed music for that.
The good news is that the copyright claim and response brought a lot of attention to the Star Wars Theory channel and the “Vader” fan film. That doesn’t hurt the support he receives through Patreon and other avenues, which comes in handy as Newsweek notes that the film cost around $150,000 to shoot.
As for Warner/Chappell, they will likely continue to claim videos which they believe infringe their rights. This is not the first fan-made project they have gone after and it likely won’t be the last.
Update: The claim was removed. Toos notes that Lucasfilm stepped in. As a result, the Vader fan film is ad-free again.
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/featstars.jpg2501200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-01-17 09:40:132019-01-17 09:40:13Star Wars Theory’s “Vader” Fan Film Hit With Copyright Claim (Update)
Video-hosting platforms that allow users to upload content are currently protected by so-called ‘safe harbor’ exceptions.
They are generally not responsible for infringing content when they respond appropriately to complaints from copyright holders. In a case against US-based video platform Vimeo that has just concluded in Italy, things certainly didn’t go to plan.
In a ruling handed down by the Commercial Court of Rome on January 10, 2019, Vimeo was ordered to pay €8.5 million plus court costs to RTI, a company owned by Italy-based mass media giant Mediaset.
According to the ruling, Vimeo allowed copyrighted TV content owned by the company to be published on its platform and then failed to remove them as the law requires. The Court described Vimeo as acting as a video on demand (VoD) service for RTI content, to the detriment of the company.
In addition to removing the content in question, Vimeo will also have to act proactively in the future by preventing new uploads of unauthorized content. Failure to do so will result in a fine of 1,000 euros for each offense plus an additional penalty of 500 euros for each day the content remains accessible on Vimeo.
The roots of the dispute date back to 2012 when Mediaset found that content extracted from its TV programming had been uploaded by Vimeo users without the necessary permission. Over time, the list of infringing content grew to more than 2,000 works.
Importantly, the Court determined that service providers who play an “active role” including “cataloging, indexing and commissioning” content cannot benefit from the safe harbor exemptions offered by the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC.
As a result, Vimeo “lost its neutral character, and with it the exemption of responsibility,” reports Alessandro La Rosa, a lawyer who acted for Mediaset.
Also of interest is that the Court highlighted technical capabilities that are available to Vimeo which should allow the platform to identify infringing content automatically and without being provided with specific URLs to take down.
This technology should allow the hosting provider “to identify, within the material on its digital platform, those that match certain illicit content, even without the prior knowledge of the reference URL and without having to devote personnel to individually view all the videos published and compare them with the programs of the holder of the infringed right.”
The timing of the ruling is notable. Within the next week, the European Parliament and Council will be aiming to agree on the final text of the ever-controversial Article 13, which may – or indeed may not – place content hosting platforms like YouTube and Vimeo in a less favorable position in respect of safe harbor protections.
“The sentence of the court of Rome takes on particular importance as it comes in the final stages of the approval process of the new European directive proposal having as its object the protection of copyright with respect to violations committed via the web,” Mediaset said in a statement.
“A provision that intends to harmonize copyright laws in the individual States to protect the creative industry and publishers who, like Mediaset, create content regularly remunerating the rights of all authors .”
According to La Rosa, the decision of the Court “is in full harmony” with recent decisions from the EU Court of Justice and also the assumption under some Article 13 proposals that content sharing platforms should obtain licenses for public communication of third-party works.
“[I]n the absence of such agreements, the obligation to lend due cooperation with the owners of the rights to prevent, with all the means made available by the state of the art, unauthorized uses of said works,” La Rosa says.
Speaking with TorrentFreak, Enzo Mazza, CEO at the Italian Federation of the Music Industry, underlined the importance of the case in Europe.
“The decision is really important regarding the definition of active hosting limiting the safe harbor and therefore extending the liabilities of the defendant,” Mazza said.
“This allows the creative sector to better address the fight against copyright violations in the video streaming area. Also regarding compensation of damages the decision is groundbreaking in Europe. ”
In addition to paying the rather large fine and remaining vigilant on any further uploads of infringing Mediaset content, Vimeo has been ordered to publish details of the ruling in the physical and online editions of two Italian newspapers. It is also required to publish the same information on the home page of Vimeo.com
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/court2-featured.jpg00Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-01-16 18:39:152019-01-16 18:39:15Vimeo ‘Fined’ €8.5m For Failure to Remove Copyrighted TV Content
While legal IPTV platforms exist online, the acronym is also closely associated with services providing access to unlicensed live TV feeds.
These services can be easily accessed via a PC, tablet, or mobile phone, but many are accessed via Android-type set-top boxes. Another option is to use the MAG range of set-top devices available from Ukraine-based Infomir.
The company strongly disassociates itself from such infringing uses and in support of that announced last December that following complaints from rightsholders, it would prevent users from accessing allegedly-infringing portals.
“Upon receiving complaints from a copyright holder, Infomir is obliged to restrict access from its devices to any portal suspected of copyright infringement. The restriction will be maintained until the issue with the copyright holder is resolved,” the company said.
News of this action, or at least its effects, spread quickly among many IPTV users. Customers of several unlicensed services reported that portal URLs (the domain names used by devices to access IPTV services) had been blocked on their MAG devices and were no longer accessible.
Some providers changed their portal URLs in response but that was always destined to become a game of whac-a-mole. However, right from the beginning it seemed that MAG devices themselves contained the solution and it didn’t take long before that was confirmed.
In a post to Reddit, an unnamed developer using a ‘throwaway’ account revealed how he’d defeated the blocking system.
“I’ve spent the last few days digging around with [network analysis tool] Wireshark + custom firmware to see how this was working, and it turns out it’s quite simple and can be removed from all current firmware on all models that I’ve tested (250/254/256/322/324),” he wrote.
“We *could*, as people currently are, keep changing portal URLs – but this is not sustainable and as the box is phoning home on every boot, is more than likely just making it easier for Infomir to just re-block on the next wave of updates to the blacklist.”
The full breakdown is available on Reddit and indeed other places elsewhere but speaking with TorrentFreak the developer offered to put some more meat on the bones.
‘Thr0wawayicus’ told TF that when connected to the Internet, MAG devices use encryption to access a URL on Infomir’s servers. This results in the creation of a file called dls.backup on the local device.
“The encrypted communication is made up of an HTTPS connection to the mentioned URL,” he said.
“I can only guess at the contents but at minimum, it contains the data that is saved as dls.backup, although I can’t rule out that it potentially also reports the portal URLs you’re using back to Infomir to build up their database for potential future blocks,” he postulated.
‘Thr0wawayicus’ says that left him with two tasks – patch the browser present in MAG devices (or block the hosts file to prevent access to the blacklist), or erase the dls.backup file to prevent cached lookups.
He told TF that deleting the file is probably fine since it likely has no other purpose than to block URLs – it didn’t exist in any firmware prior to the latest releases and is referred to internally as a “domain list file”.
While some technically-minded people will be able to follow the detailed instructions available online (we’ve published just the very bare bones here for reporting purposes), ‘Thr0wawayicus’ has also put in a lot of work to streamline the process.
MAG devices are designed to accept custom firmware. In fact, Infomir provides all the tools that users need to compile their own. ‘Thr0wawayicus’ says that he used these tools to create custom ‘anti-blocking’ firmware variants for popular MAG devices. These have been placed on file-hosting platforms and torrents for public consumption.
“The firmware was built with the officially available tools, from source files Infomir release specifically for the purpose of building custom firmware,” he explained.
“There are no license terms prohibiting you from editing the filesystem as needed. It’s no less legal than stopping say a Chinese WiFi camera from phoning home.”
While that might possibly be the case, we aren’t linking to modified firmware here. That being said, ‘Thr0wawayicus’ reveals that he spent considerable amounts of time putting them together.
“Reverse engineering the issue took me around a day. The longest part of the process which took a couple of days after that was the building and testing of all the individual firmware files for each model of the MAG to automate the process of disabling the check in a manner which would require no special intervention or technical knowledge from the end user,” he revealed.
“The time spent waiting for flashes to complete (because I had to go back and forth between the official firmware and mine for testing) probably made up the majority of those two days.”
The developer said he was motivated to bypass the portal blocking present in these devices because he isn’t comfortable with an equipment manufacturer dictating what people can and cannot do with their devices.
As previously highlighted, Infomir previously stated they are simply carrying through with their obligations to block allegedly-infringing content as required under both US and European law.
“Our policy is to comply with the EU and US legislation on copyright and take into account best practices in the area of handling of copyright infringement reports,” the company told TF.
“In particular, we only process the reports of copyright infringement that contain all the elements of notification envisaged by the DMCA.”
Infomir also added that it filters for false or abusive claims and provides all blocked providers with the opportunity to oppose a copyright infringement report. In the event of a dispute, the company said it would request a court order to maintain access restriction to a blocked portal.
Infomir informs TorrentFreak that its products are aimed at professional IPTV service providers and the company strives to maintain high standards of hardware and software.
“All the tools we provide to our customers are designed to be used solely by legitimate service providers,” says Infomir Legal Counsel Vladislav Larionov.
“We understand that there might be ways to circumvent any restriction system on any device, be it set-top box, smart TV, tablet, smartphone etc. To ensure high enough level of reliability of the restriction system, we get it in line with the recommendations of anti-piracy associations we cooperate with.”
A year ago “Article 13” was only known to a select audience with a particular interest in copyright issues.
Every day millions of people post photos online, without approval from the rightsholder. This is particularly prevalent on social media platforms such as Facebook.
The takedown notice was sent March last year and the post in question 
The short five-page complaint accuses Facebook of copyright infringement and Pierson requests compensation for the damages she suffered.
Over the years we’ve written numerous times about questionable copyright claims on YouTube.
