YouTube rippers are seen as the largest piracy threat to the music industry, and record labels are doing their best to shut them down.

In 2017, YouTube-MP3, the world’s largest ripping site at the time, shut down after being sued, and several other folded in response to increased legal uncertainty.

Not all stream-ripping sites throw in the towel without a fight though. FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com, owned by Russian developer Tofig Kurbanov, remained online despite being sued by several record labels last August.

Where other site owners often prefer to remain in the shadows, Kurbanov filed a motion to dismiss the case. According to the defense, the court has no jurisdiction over the matter. Only a small fraction of the visitors come from the US, and the site is managed entirely from Russia, it argued.

The RIAA labels, including Universal, Warner Bros, and Sony, clearly disagreed. In response, they argued that the operator of FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com downplays the connections to the US and Virginia. Therefore, he should stand trial there.

Yesterday, US District Court Judge Claude M. Hilton ruled on the matter. In a 14-page opinion, he clearly sides with the operator of the YouTube rippers. Kurbanov doesn’t have to stand trial in the US so the case was dismissed.

The ruling is merely about jurisdiction and doesn’t make an assessment of the alleged copyright infringements. The court carefully reviewed how the site operates and found no evidence that they purposefully targeted either Virginia or the United States.

The sites are available in the US and have plenty of visitors there, but that by itself is not enough.

“Even if the Websites’ servers knew exactly where the users were located, any interaction would still be in the unilateral control of the users as they initiate the contacts,” Judge Hilton’s opinion reads.

2conv.com

There could be personal jurisdiction if there’s a “commercial contract” involved. However, that’s not the case here. The site generates revenue from users through advertisements, but that’s not seen as a basis for a commercial contract, the court concludes.

“As the Websites are semi-interactive, the interactions with the users are non-commercial, and there were no other acts by the Defendant that would demonstrate purposeful targeting, the Court finds that Defendant did not purposefully avail himself of the benefits and protections of either Virginia or the United States.

“The Court finds that exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendant would be unconstitutional as a violation of due process…” Judge Hilton’s opinion adds, before dismissing the case.

In addition, the opinion stresses that without personal jurisdiction the record labels don’t have the option to refile the case in California or elsewhere in the US.

The ruling

Val Gurvits, one of the attorneys who represented the site operator, is thrilled with the outcome. He believes this will also be beneficial to other foreign sites that offer similar functionality.

“This decision goes a long way towards curbing the copyright owners’ misuse of the US legal system to bully foreign website operators,” Gurvits informs TorrentFreak.

In many copyright-related cases, foreign defendants decide not to appear at all, but this case shows that fighting back can pay off.

“All too often plaintiffs file actions in US courts against foreign defendants that have no connections with the US – and all too often foreign defendants are subjected to default judgments for failure to appear in a US court,” Gurvits says.

“We are happy we were able to save our client from having to defend this action in a US court thousands of miles away from where the relevant business activities take place,” he adds.

The major record labels have yet to comment on the outcome. TorrentFreak reached out to the RIAA for a response, but we haven’t heard back thus far.

—

A copy of the memorandum opinion supporting the dismissal is available here (pdf).

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

US music and movie industry companies helped to get pirate sites blocked in countries all around the globe.

On their home turf, however, pirate sites remain freely accessible.

After the SOPA protests, the blocking issue became a no-go issue in the US. Blocking efforts continued elsewhere though, including in the UK, where hundreds of pirate domains have been blocked.

Slowly but steadily, copyright holders now appear ready to reintroduce the idea of site blocking. Recent filings from Hollywood’s MPAA and the music industry’s RIAA believe that a new US-UK trade agreement is a good opportunity to do so.

The trade deal is required if the UK leaves the EU. To gauge what various stakeholders would like to see in a new agreement, the US Trade Representative (USTR) requested comments from the public.

Responding to this request the RIAA provides a list of priorities for the negotiations. This includes known talking points such as increasing liability for online platforms, but site-blocking also get a prominent mention.

In the UK copyright holders can request site-blocking injunctions fairly easily, and the RIAA would like to see the same in the US.

“Website blocking is a highly-effective form of copyright enforcement in the UK, and in numerous other jurisdictions around the world to combat infringing websites, and is a critical tool in ensuring legitimate trade in digital products and services,” the RIAA writes.

The music group adds that blocking has proven to be very effective in reducing traffic to the affected sites.

“Website blocking has been successful in the United Kingdom with 63 music sites being ordered to be blocked following music right holders’ initiatives. On average this produces a reduction in the use of those sites by UK users by approximately 75 percent.”

The RIAA further highlights the more recent “live” or “dynamic” blocking orders. These are currently targeting pirated football and boxing streams as they are broadcasted, and are limited to the duration of a season or event.

The music group is not alone in this request. The Digital Creators Working Group, which includes the Association of American Publishers, News Media Alliance, as well as the RIAA and MPAA, highlighted it as well.

In a separate submission to the USTR, the organizations list “website blocking, including “dynamic” blocking as provided in UK law,” as one of the priorities for a new trade deal.

The MPAA itself also sent in a list of priorities. In a carefully worded statement, which doesn’t mention the word “blocking,” it points out that the UK is ahead of the US in many regards when it comes to anti-piracy enforcement.

“With regard to online enforcement, a U.S.-UK agreement should include disciplines that can effectively address online piracy. In many ways, the UK has more nimbly and effectively responded to digital piracy than the U.S.,” MPAA notes.

The MPAA would like to pick the best elements from US and UK policy and combine them into an even more effective agreement.

“To promote a modernized IP trade framework, MPAA recommends moving to high-level language that reflects the fundamental principles on which the DMCA is based and which identifies key elements of the UK system, including no fault injunctive relief orders, as satisfying the standard. 

“Such an approach would be fully consistent with U.S. law and preserve the high levels of protection in the UK’s enforcement framework,” the MPAA adds. 

While blocking isn’t mentioned specifically, the “no fault injunctive relief orders” the Hollywood group refers to are generally used against ISPs to compel these companies to block pirate sites.

The submissions clearly show that major rightsholder groups are no longer avoiding the blocking issue in the US. This already became apparent a few weeks ago, when music industry outfits brought it up in comments sent to the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator.

—

RIAA’s full submission is available here (pdf). MPAA’s response can be found here (pdf) and the  Digital Creators Working Group’s submission is here (pdf).

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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:

1. 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
2. Crypto mining – Mine crypto currency in the background. From my experience this’ll only overwork the device for very little money
3. 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 voluntarily to save a business model, what happens when the authorities come calling and action is required to save a skin?

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

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).

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