Anyone wanting to develop new skills can find information to do so on the Internet. While many areas can benefit from one-to-one instruction, tutorials on how to accomplish most things under one’s own steam can be found online.

The majority of online tutorials are completely non-controversial but when it comes to learning skills that have the potential to break the law, things get a little more volatile.

This is particularly evident in the online piracy scene. With just a few clicks of a mouse, people can learn how to obtain content without paying for it, learn how to crack software or bypass anti-piracy mechanisms on pay TV, for example. It’s been this way for at least a couple of decades and doesn’t appear to be going away anytime soon.

That’s perhaps why there was such outcry on Reddit this week when a long-standing tutorial on how to pirate Adobe CC was taken down following a copyright complaint.

The tutorial, titled ‘Pirating Adobe CC for Dummies’, was posted in 2016 and was presumably interesting to the many thousands of people who read it, whether they went on to pirate anything or not. However, a takedown notice received by Reddit saw the tutorial removed.

Taken down after two years

The text that now sits in place of the tutorial doesn’t indicate that the takedown notice was sent by Adobe. However, it seems fairly likely the world-famous software company was behind the effort. In any event, Reddit clearly viewed the tutorial as problematic and removed it.

This ignited a very lively discussion about the legality of the tutorial, with people pointing out that it didn’t link to any unauthorized Adobe content, nor did it directly link to any of the tools required to pirate the company’s software.

Perhaps more surprisingly, however, is that many users turned their anger on Reddit’s admins, who were accused of taking the site in a corporate direction while pleasing shareholders with the takedown of content, this tutorial in particular. In fact, many posts discussed where users of /r/piracy could move to, in order to escape perceived censorship on Reddit.

There are several angles to this issue, none of which are straightforward. TorrentFreak showed the original thread to three lawyers at separate companies while pointing out the lack of links to copyrighted content, to see if this aspect might play a role in the validity of the original claim.

None particularly wanted to commit on whether the tutorial itself was illegal but in off-the-record comments, two independently touched on contributory infringement, “a means by which a person may be held liable for infringement even though he or she did not actually engage in infringing activities.”

TorrentFreak also sought comment from the EFF but at the time of publishing, we were yet to receive a response. Clearly, getting definitive answers on the legality of the tutorial itself wasn’t going to be easy but perhaps that’s the distraction here.

After receiving the complaint, Reddit was compelled by law to take the content down. There is, of course, the possibility to file a counter-notice, which would enable the author to challenge Adobe’s assertions of infringement (if that’s who sent the notice) and allow the content to go back up, at least for a while.

However, it is extremely unlikely the author of the tutorial would be prepared to file a counter-notice because that would mean a) identifying him or herself (with a statement including “name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that you consent to the jurisdiction of federal district court for the judicial district in which the address is located”) and b) exposing themselves to a potential lawsuit if the sender wanted to make a point.

This leads, of course, to the inevitable conclusion. Few people who write this kind of tutorial want to be exposed or find themselves on the end of a lawsuit, whether they believe they have the law on their side or not. For most people, expensive lawsuits are not fun and the fight for freedom of speech and access to information often stop when the bills come flooding in.

So, with no counter-claim forthcoming, the tutorial stays down and Reddit keeps its own safe harbor protections, ready to fight another day.

None of this should come as a surprise to anyone. Adobe trying to protect its content? Reddit responding to copyright takedown demands? Piracy tutorial creators not wanting to be part of a lawsuit? A heated debate over freedom of speech? It’s just another day at the office in the copyright world.

Finally, it’s worth noting that the /r/piracy sub-Reddit now has another copyright complaint to add to the increasing tally, despite the best efforts of its moderators who, like Reddit’s admins, may soon have tough choices to make about what content can stay and what must go.

Adobe did not respond to TorrentFreak’s request for comment.

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

The fact that ISPs around the world are blocking pirate sites to prevent copyright infringement is nothing new. The practice has been going for more than decade.

Aside from voluntary arrangements, such as the one currently playing out in Portugal, ISPs tend to wait for courts to hand down an injunction before blocking a site. In Germany, however, a new situation has raised its head.

On Tuesday, subscribers to Vodafone discovered that they could no longer access streaming portals Burning Series (BS.to) and Serial Stream (S.to). Rather than accessing the thousands of TV shows usually on offer, they were instead met by a blocking message presented by their ISP.

Both sites currently have messages on their main pages, explaining that Vodafone has chosen to block their platforms. In the meantime, local news outlet Tarnkappe has obtained a statement from Vodafone which confirmed that the ISP is blocking the sites.

“Due to the provisions of German and European copyright and telemedia law, access providers such as Vodafone are under certain conditions required by law to block access to websites with illegal content – eg to illegal streaming offers of films and TV series,” spokesperson Volker Petendorf told the publication.

While it’s no surprise to hear of yet another block, further information provided by Vodafone reveals that the block was put in place following a complaint from a rightsholder but without a court ordering a blockade.

Referencing a copyright case which was handled by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) during the summer, Vodafone now says it believes the decision has a knock-on effect that requires them to block sites in certain circumstances.

As previously reported, in that case the BGH ruled that WiFi providers cannot be held liable for piracy carried out by their users. However, they can be told to prevent access to file-sharing services and even block entire websites, once infringement has been confirmed.

Vodafone believes this applies to them too, since a copyright holder has informed them of an unsuccessful attempt to prevent infringements via the above-mentioned sites.

“Currently, the rights holder of the TV series ‘Das Boot’ has asked Vodafone to block domains that provide access to the ‘s.to’ and ‘bs.to’ websites. The copyright holder has made credible claims to Vodafone that this TV series can be accessed illegally via the Internet portals s.to and bs.to without the necessary consent of the copyright holder and thus illegally,” Vodafone told Tarnkappe.

“The copyright holder has assured us that it is not possible for him to enforce his rights other than by blocking access to these sites. Vodafone, after thorough legal examination, believes that we are currently obliged to block access to these websites in accordance with mandatory legal provisions.”

Currently, both BS.to and S.to have notices up on their main pages detailing ways that Vodafone’s DNS-based block can be circumvented.

“Some internet service providers, such as Vodafone, block access to Burning Series and censor your Internet access. Therefore, we recommend that you change your DNS name servers to the IP addresses of Google 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 or Cloudflare 1.1.1.1 and 1.0.0.1,” BS.to notes.

Vodafone suggests that should the legal situation change in the future, the blocks against both sites will be lifted.

This is the third time this year that Vodafone has blocked pirate sites.

In August the ISP blocked access to Libgen after publishing giants Elsevier, Springer, and Macmillan obtained an injunction from the Munich Regional Court. In February, following a complaint from a movie distribution company, Vodafone blocked streaming portal Kinox.to.

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

Compared to many other companies in the video industry, Netflix traditionally had a fairly pragmatic approach to the piracy phenomenon.

Now, however, with billions of dollars being spent creating its own content, the company is a major player in the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), a global anti-piracy coalition with considerable influence.

According to a March 2018 report, by 2020 the company will have more than 546,000 customers in the Thailand. However, piracy is rampant in the country, something that has led to its placement on the USTR’s Priority and regular Watch Lists in recent years.

To help alleviate this situation and help companies including Netflix, this week the government launched a brand new anti-piracy agency located within the Office of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC).

“The Royal Thai Police (RTP) and the Office of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) have been charged with a cooperative mission to suppress and prevent the proliferation of counterfeit products and online piracy,” an NBTC statement reads.

“This follows a number of expressions of serious concern from international allies such as the US, Japan, and others whose domestic companies’ IP rights are being infringed in the form of counterfeit handbags, clothes, makeup, electronic devices, and digital piracy.”

During a press conference marking the launch of the Center of Operational Policing for Thailand Against Intellectual Property Violations and Crimes on the Internet Suppression (COPTICS), it was noted that the current procedure (which can sometimes take more than six months from initial complaint through to a court issuing a blocking order) is considered inadequate.

The mission now is to massively speed up the process, with the lofty aim of having sites blocked within a few days of receiving a complaint. Netflix, it appears, will be one of the first companies to test the new system.

Immediately following the launch of the new initiative, three companies – Netflix, Mono Technology Plc, and Major Cineplex Group, plus the Thai Motion Picture Industry Association – filed complaints with the new agency, Bangkok Post reports.

It is not yet clear which platforms have been reported to authorities but according to the government, the content companies must first complain to TACTICS, Thailand’s Action Taskforce for Information Technology Crime Suppression.

Once the copyright complaint has been received and accepted by the police, it will be progressed to the NBTC which will order local Internet service providers to block offending websites and URLs. Once blocks are put in place, police and the NBTC will “monitor and implement proceedings against offenders.”

According to NBTC secretary-general Takorn Tantasith, 2,000 allegedly infringing sites and/or URLs were reported to the authorities between August and December this year, but only 20% were blocked. Just last week, police filed complaints against 744 sites with the NBTC, but just 47 were blocked in that instance.

Curiously, the reason given by Takorn for the low number of blocks is that the remainder “are encrypted from abroad” meaning that they cannot be blocked locally by ISPs, something which is hard to believe. Provoking even more interest is that the majority of the sites are claimed to be run “by Google, YouTube, and Facebook.”

According to Bangkok Post, NBTC has asked representatives of the US embassy to invite management teams from these companies to conduct talks with Thai authorities to address the problems.

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

While it’s not getting making big headlines in the mainstream media, US courts are still loaded with BitTorrent related lawsuits.

The cases are filed by a small group of copyright holders. To state their claim, these companies generally rely on IP-addresses as evidence.

These IP-address details are collected from BitTorrent swarms and linked to a geographical location using geolocation tools. With this information in hand, rightsholders ask the courts to grant a subpoena, forcing Internet providers to hand over the personal details of the associated account holder.

This process isn’t new and the same tactics have been used for years. While some federal judges have raised doubts about the accuracy and sufficiency of IP-address evidence, many others let the cases continue.

In recent weeks, however, more and more judges have begun to ask questions.

This started after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reached a verdict in Cobbler Nevada v. Gonzales. The Court ruled that identifying the registered subscriber of an IP-address by itself is not enough to argue that this person is also the infringer.

“Because multiple devices and individuals may be able to connect via an IP address, simply identifying the IP subscriber solves only part of the puzzle. A plaintiff must allege something more to create a reasonable inference that a subscriber is also an infringer,” the verdict read.

What this “something more” should be was not clarified, but the order didn’t go unnoticed. In recent weeks several district courts have cited the ruling, requesting copyright holders to come up with “something more” as well.

Just last week, US District Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a complaint Malibu Media had filed for this very reason.

“This Court agrees with the Ninth Circuit and those courts that have found that a plaintiff must allege more than simply the registration of an IP address to an individual in order to proceed against that individual for copyright infringement,” Judge Ellis wrote.

Malibu Media, one of the most prolific filers of BitTorrent lawsuits, was given the opportunity to amend the complaint with new details, but those will have to tie the defendant to the alleged infringement.

The company had already amended the complaint previously, showing that the IP address was the source of a persistent pattern of copyright infringement. That, however, was not enough.

In Nevada, US Magistrate Judge Nancy Koppe also highlighted the Gonzales ruling. A request for a subpoena by Strike 3 Holdings was denied because an IP-address alone is not enough.

“In the context of BitTorrent copyright infringement, the Ninth Circuit has recently held that a plaintiff bears the burden of pleading factual allegations that create a reasonable inference that the defendant is the infringer.

“Hence, a complaint that traces infringement to a particular IP address and pleads that the IP address is registered to the defendant is insufficient to state a claim,” Judge Koppe adds.

Over in Washington, District Judge Thomas Zilly asked for “something more” as well, in an order that spans twelve cases and dozens of defendants. Again, referencing the Appeals Court’s Gonzales ruling.

The rightsholder in those cases, Venice PI, did respond with further details.

The company said that it gathered various other details including download history and the layout of the residence and neighborhood, which make it likely that the account holder is the infringer. Whether that’s good enough remains to be seen.

What’s clear though is that the Appeals Court ruling is being used by courts across the country to demand “something more” than an IP-address alone.

While this is not the end of so-called “copyright trolling” practices just yet, it does make it harder for rightsholders to convince the courts.

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