Over the years there have been almost endless attempts to stop people from accessing copyright-infringing content online. Campaigns have come and gone and almost two decades later the battle is still ongoing.

Early on, when panic enveloped the music industry, the campaigns centered around people getting sued. Grabbing music online for free could be costly, the industry warned, while parading the heads of a few victims on pikes for the world to see.

Periodically, however, the aim has been to appeal to the public’s better nature. The idea is that people essentially want to do the ‘right thing’, so once they understand that largely hard-working Americans are losing their livelihoods, people will stop downloading from The Pirate Bay. For some, this probably had the desired effect but millions of people are still getting their fixes for free, so the job isn’t finished yet.

In more recent years, notably since the MPAA and RIAA had their eyes blacked in the wake of SOPA, the tone has shifted. In addition to educating the public, torrent and streaming sites are increasingly being painted as enemies of the public they claim to serve.

Several studies, largely carried out on behalf of the Digital Citizens Alliance (DCA), have claimed that pirate sites are hotbeds of malware, baiting consumers in with tasty pirate booty only to offload trojans, viruses, and God-knows-what. These reports have been ostensibly published as independent public interest documents but this week an advisor to the DCA suggested a deeper interest for the industry.

Hemanshu Nigam is a former federal prosecutor, ex-Chief Security Officer for News Corp and Fox Interactive Media, and former VP Worldwide Internet Enforcement at the MPAA. In an interview with Deadline this week, he spoke about alleged links between pirate sites and malware distributors. He also indicated that warning people about the dangers of pirate sites has become Hollywood’s latest anti-piracy strategy.

“The industry narrative has changed. When I was at the MPAA, we would tell people that stealing content is wrong and young people would say, yeah, whatever, you guys make a lot of money, too bad,” he told the publication.

“It has gone from an ethical discussion to a dangerous one. Now, your parents’ bank account can be raided, your teenage daughter can be spied on in her bedroom and extorted with the footage, or your computer can be locked up along with everything in it and held for ransom.”

Nigam’s stance isn’t really a surprise since he’s currently working for the Digital Citizens Alliance as an advisor. In turn, the Alliance is at least partly financed by the MPAA. There’s no suggestion whatsoever that Nigam is involved in any propaganda effort, but recent signs suggest that the DCA’s work in malware awareness is more about directing people away from pirate sites than protecting them from the alleged dangers within.

That being said and despite the bias, it’s still worth giving experts like Nigam an opportunity to speak. Largely thanks to industry efforts with brands, pirate sites are increasingly being forced to display lower-tier ads, which can be problematic. On top, some sites’ policies mean they don’t deserve any visitors at all.

In the Deadline piece, however, Nigam alleges that hackers have previously reached out to pirate websites offering $200 to $5000 per day “depending on the size of the pirate website” to have the site infect users with malware. If true, that’s a serious situation and people who would ordinarily use ‘pirate’ sites would definitely appreciate the details.

For example, to which sites did hackers make this offer and, crucially, which sites turned down the offer and which ones accepted?

It’s important to remember that pirates are just another type of consumer and they would boycott sites in a heartbeat if they discovered they’d been paid to infect them with malware. But, as usual, the claims are extremely light in detail. Instead, there’s simply a blanket warning to stay away from all unauthorized sites, which isn’t particularly helpful.

In some cases, of course, operational security will prevent some details coming to light but without these, people who don’t get infected on a ‘pirate’ site (the vast majority) simply won’t believe the allegations. As the author of the Deadline piece pointed out, it’s a bit like Reefer Madness all over again.

The point here is that without hard independent evidence to back up these claims, with reports listing sites alongside the malware they’ve supposed to have spread and when, few people will respond to perceived scaremongering. Free content trumps a few distant worries almost every time, whether that involves malware or the threat of a lawsuit.

It’ll be up to the DCA and their MPAA paymasters to consider whether the approach is working but thus far, not even having government heavyweights on board has helped.

Earlier this year the DCA launched a video campaign, enrolling 15 attorney generals to publish their own anti-piracy PSAs on YouTube. Thus far, interest has been minimal, to say the least.

At the time of writing the 15 PSAs have 3,986 views in total, with 2,441 of those contributed by a single video contributed by Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel. Despite the relative success, even that got slammed with 2 upvotes and 127 downvotes.

A few of the other videos have a couple of hundred views each but more than half have less than 70. Perhaps most worryingly for the DCA, apart from the Schimel PSA, none have any upvotes at all, only down. It’s unclear who the viewers were but it seems reasonable to conclude they weren’t entertained.

The bottom line is nobody likes malware or having their banking details stolen but yet again, people who claim to have the public interest at heart aren’t actually making a difference on the ground. It could be argued that groups advocating online safety should be publishing guides on how to stay protected on the Internet period, not merely advising people to stay away from certain sites.

But of course, that wouldn’t achieve the goals of the MPAA Digital Citizens Alliance.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.





Source link


It has been a while since we released 17.3 release where we fixed several issues. Now the time has come to do another where we tackled several more issues that were identified. Although we already moved on with development towards v18 we do take the time to fix issues for the current release when we can. To give these fixes a proper test run before we call it final we first want to make this release candidate available for the wider audience who might be facing some of these issues we have fixed. Just browse the list below and give it a try.

Fixes done in this release:

  • Potentially fix crashing on Windows due to an issue in Python
  • Potentially fix crashing on Windows when enabling zeroconf
  • Fix sporadic crash on Windows when installing or updating add-ons
  • Fix issue for users with reverse proxies attempting to forward websockets.
  • Fix possible issue if Linux distro uses system ffmpeg and cause black screen with 10-bit H.265
  • Properly throttle scraping music information online to prevent overloading the provider
  • Fix native keyboard on iOS 11
  • Fix potential crash on Android O loading App icons
  • Fix non showing Kodi banner on Android O
  • Fix potential crash on Android with certain keymaps
  • Fix wrong detection of VP6 and VP8 videocodec on Android
  • Update FFmpeg to 3.1.9
  • Set hard requirement to use FFmpeg 3.1.x only
  • Fix for Hangup when viewing recording and pressing next/previous
  • Fix merge scraped album type and label correctly with that derived from tags from music files

What else is new?

In the bugfix releases we never include any new features. They are as feature complete as the initial version with the difference is they contain stability and usability fixes. If you are curious you can read up on all the v17 changes here: Kodi v17.0 “Krypton”

Where can I download Kodi?

As alway you can find the official builds on our download page. Then click on the platform of choice and choose pre release build. You can install these build just on top of your current Kodi installation without doing a reinstall or cleanup as we do a full migration if needed. All you add-ons or installed skin will keep working.

Apparel, donations or getting involved

Getting involved is quite easy. We encourage you to report problems with these builds on our forum first and after that, if asked, submit bugs on Trac (following this guide: How to submit a bug report). Do note that we need detailed information so we can investigate the issue. We also appreciate providing support in our Forums where you can. You can of course also follow or help promote Kodi on all available social networks. Read more on the get involved page. We are always happy to receive a donation by which you show your support and appreciation, and t-shirts and Raspberry Pi cases may still be found on the sidebar for purchase. All donations and other income goes towards the XBMC foundation and are typically used for travel to attend conferences, any necessary paperwork and legal fees, purchasing necessary hardware and licenses for developers and hopefully the yearly XBMC Foundation Developers Conference.





Source link


Dutch anti-piracy outfit BREIN has been very active over the past several years, targeting uploaders on various sharing sites and services.

They cast their net wide and have gone after torrent users, Facebook groups, YouTube pirates and Usenet uploaders as well.

To pinpoint the latter group, BREIN contacts Usenet providers asking them to reveal the identity of a suspected user. This is also what happened in a case involving a former customer of Eweka.

The person in question, known under the alias ‘Badfan69,’ was accused of uploading 9,538 infringing works to Usenet, mostly older titles. After Eweka handed over his home address, BREIN reached out to him and negotiated a settlement.

The 44-year-old man has now agreed to pay a settlement of €4,800. If he continues to upload infringing content he will face an additional penalty of €2,000 per day, to a maximum of €50,000.

The case is an important victory for BREIN, not just because of the money.

When the anti-piracy group reached out to Usenet provider Eweka, the company initially refused to hand over any personal details. The Usenet provider argued that it’s a neutral intermediary that would rather not perform the role of piracy police. Instead, it wanted the court to decide whether the request was legitimate.

This resulted in a legal dispute where, earlier this year, a local court sided with BREIN. The Court stressed that in these type of copyright infringement cases, the Usenet provider is required to hand over the requested details.

Under Dutch law, ISPs can be obliged to hand over the personal details of their customers if the infringing activity is plausible and the damaged party has a legitimate interest. Importantly, the legal case clarified that this generally doesn’t require an intervention from the court.

“Providers must decide on a motivated request for the handover of a user’s address, based on their own consideration. A refusal to provide the information must be motivated, otherwise, it will be illegal and the provider will be charged for the costs,” BREIN notes.

While these Usenet cases are relatively rare, BREIN and other parties in the Netherlands, such as Dutch Filmworks, are also planning to go after large groups of torrent users. With the Usenet decision in hand, BREIN may want to argue that regular ISPs must also expose pirating users, without an intervention of the court.

This is not going to happen easily though. Several ISPs, most prominently Ziggo, announced that they would not voluntarily cooperate and are likely to fight out these requests in court to get a solid ‘torrent’ precedent.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.





Source link


Reports of sites becoming mysteriously inaccessible in India have been a regular occurrence over the past several years. In many cases, sites simply stop functioning, leaving users wondering whether sites are actually down or whether there’s a technical issue.

Due to their increasing prevalence, fingers are often pointed at so-called ‘John Doe’ orders, which are handed down by the court to prevent Internet piracy. Often sweeping in nature (and in some cases pre-emptive rather than preventative), these injunctions have been known to block access to both file-sharing platforms and innocent bystanders.

Earlier this week (and again for no apparent reason), the world renowned Internet Archive was rendered inaccessible to millions of users in India. The platform, which is considered by many to be one of the Internet’s most valued resources, hosts more than 15 petabytes of data, a figure which grows on a daily basis. Yet despite numerous requests for information, none was forthcoming from authorities.

The ‘blocked’ message seen by users accessing Archive.org

Quoted by local news outlet Medianama, Chris Butler, Office Manager at the Internet Archive, said that their attempts to contact the Indian Department of Telecom (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Meity) had proven fruitless.

Noting that their site had previously been blocked in India, Butler said they were no clearer on the reasons why the same kind of action had seemingly been taken this week.

“We have no information about why a block would have been implemented,” he said. “Obviously, we are disappointed and concerned by this situation and are very eager to understand why it’s happening and see full access restored to archive.org.”

Now, however, the mystery has been solved. The BBC says a local government agency provided a copy of a court order obtained by two Bollywood production companies who are attempting to slow down piracy of their films in India.

Issued by a local judge, the sweeping order compels local ISPs to block access to 2,650 mainly file-sharing websites, including The Pirate Bay, RARBG, the revived KickassTorrents, and hundreds of other ‘usual suspects’. However, it also includes the URL for the Internet Archive, hence the problems with accessibility this week.

The injunction, which appears to be another John Doe order as previously suspected, was granted by the High Court of the Judicature at Madras on August 2, 2017. Two film productions companies – Prakash Jha Productions and Red Chillies Entertainment – obtained the order to protect their films Lipstick Under My Burkha and Jab Harry Met Sejal.

While India-based visitors to blocked resources are often greeted with a message saying that domains have been blocked at the orders of the Department of Telecommunications, these pages never give a reason why.

This always leads to confusion, with news outlets having to pressure local government agencies to discover the reason behind the blockades. In the interests of transparency, providing a link to a copy of a relevant court order would probably benefit all involved.

A few hours ago, the Internet Archive published a statement questioning the process undertaken before the court order was handed down.

“Is the Court aware of and did it consider the fact that the Internet Archive has a well-established and standard procedure for rights holders to submit take down requests and processes them expeditiously?” the platform said.

“We find several instances of take down requests submitted for one of the plaintiffs, Red Chillies Entertainments, throughout the past year, each of which were processed and responded to promptly.

“After a preliminary review, we find no instance of our having been contacted by anyone at all about these films. Is there a specific claim that someone posted these films to archive.org? If so, we’d be eager to address it directly with the claimant.”

But while the Internet Archive appears to be the highest profile collateral damage following the ISP blocks, it isn’t the only victim. Now that the court orders have become available (1,2), it’s clear that other non-pirate entities have also been affected including news site WN.com, website hosting service Weebly, and French ISP Free.fr.

Also, in a sign that sites aren’t being checked to see if they host the movies in question, one of the orders demands that former torrent index BitSnoop is blocked. The site shut down earlier this year. The same is true for Shaanig.org.

This is not the first time that the Internet Archive has been blocked in India. In 2014/2015, Archive.org was rendered inaccessible after it was accused of hosting extremist material. In common with Google, the site copies and stores huge amounts of data, much of it in automated processes. This can leave it exposed to these kinds of accusations.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.





Source link


With the whole world going crazy for Game of Thrones, another TV series has been turning some serious numbers. Produced by Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson, crime drama ‘Power’ has been pulling in around eight million viewers per episode.

After premiering in June 2014, Power is now seven episodes into season four, which is set to reach its climax on August 27. But somewhat typically for the Internet these days, fans won’t necessarily have to wait another three weeks to find out what happens. During the past few hours, the final three episodes of ‘Power’ leaked online.

While that’s something in itself, this leak is possibly the most bizarre to take place in the history of piracy. Having been tipped off that screener episodes were available online, TF went looking for evidence. We found it, but it wasn’t what we expected.

The leaks consist of the three episodes (one complete, the other two missing a few minutes) being played back on an iPhone. A white one. With a broken screen.

Power leaks: Broken iPhone edition

The off-center nature of the image above isn’t typical though and most of the time the main picture is both central and well-defined, with surprisingly clear audio. It’s certainly not going to win any prizes for quality but for the extremely impatient it offers some kind of relief.

The big question, of course, is how these episodes happened to find their way onto that battered iPhone in the first place. Incredibly, the videos themselves provide the answers, with the thoughtful ‘cammer’ explaining in several voice-overs how he gained access to one of STARZ hottest properties.

“This is like the special, this is only for the people that work at STARZ that watch this shit. My man sent me the whole log-in shit. I had to pay that n******r though,” he said.

The log-in referenced by the leaker appears to unlock press access to unreleased content on mediaroom.starz.com. That page has been taken down since, quite possibly due to the leak. Thanks to the video though, we can see how the portal looked on the leaker’s phone.

Unreleased ‘Power’ episodes on the STARZ portal

“That’s the whole series bitch, but I can’t log out though, so I can’t send it to you. The man says don’t log out. So i’m gonna watch these last two episodes and then spoil it for y’all,” the ‘cammer’ said over one of the episodes.

The original claim that theses were screener copies holds up. Throughout all three episodes, an occasional message appears across the bottom of the screen, declaring that the episodes are “for screening purposes only.”

Screener copies, for your eyes only

If the whole situation isn’t bizarre enough so far, the episodes contain quite a bit of complaining from the ‘cammer’, mainly due to his arm aching from holding up the recording phone for such a long time.

Why he didn’t simply place it down on the table isn’t clear. He managed it with the playback phone, which is seen leaning against a large water container throughout, something the ‘cammer’ believes is pretty badass.

“You see, I got my shit propped up like a G,” he said, placing the phone against the water bottle. “Next episode, definitely not holdin’ this shit, so you n*****s gotta relax.”

If this whole scenario isn’t crazy enough, the ‘cammer’ polishes off his virtuoso performance by turning the ‘cam’ phone around and recording his own face for several seconds. To save his embarrassment we won’t publish an image here but needless to say, he is extremely easy to identify, as is his Facebook page, where the content seems to have first appeared.

While there’s clearly no criminal mastermind behind these leaks, dumping unreleased TV shows online can result in a hefty jail sentence, no matter how poorly it’s done. The gentleman involved should hope that STARZ and the FBI are prepared to see the funny side. Fingers crossed….

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.





Source link


There is little doubt that, in the United States, Netflix has become the standard for watching movies on the Internet.

The subscription service is responsible for a third of all Internet traffic during peak hours, dwarfing that of online piracy and other legal video platforms.

It’s safe to assume that Netflix-type streaming services are among the best and most convenient alternative to piracy at this point. There is a problem though. The whole appeal of the streaming model becomes diluted when there are too many ‘Netflixes.’

Yesterday, Disney announced that it will end its partnership with Netflix in 2019. The company is working on its own Disney-branded movie streaming platforms, where titles such as Frozen 2 and Toy Story 4 will end up in the future.

Disney titles are among the most-watched content on Netflix, and the company’s stock took a hit when the news came out. In a statement late yesterday, Disney CEO Bob noted that the company has a good relationship with Netflix but the companies will part ways at the end of next year.

At the moment no decision has been made on what happens to Lucasfilm and Marvel films, but these could find a new home as well. Marvel TV shows such as Jessica Jones and Luke Cage will reportedly stay at Netflix

Although Disney’s decision may be good for Disney, a lot of Netflix users are not going to be happy. It likely means that they need another streaming platform subscription to get what they want, which isn’t a very positive prospect.

In piracy discussions, Hollywood insiders often stress that people have no reason to pirate, as pretty much all titles are available online legally. What they don’t mention, however, is that users need access to a few dozen paid services, to access them all.

In a way, this fragmentation is keeping the pirate ecosystems intact. While legal streaming services work just fine, having dozens of subscriptions is expensive, and not very practical. Especially not compared to pirate streaming sites, where everything can be accessed on the same site.

The music business has a better model, or had initially. Services such as Spotify allowed fans to access most popular music in one place, although that’s starting to crumble as well, due to exclusive deals and more fragmentation.

Admittedly, for a no-name observer, it’s easy to criticize and point fingers. The TV and movie business is built on complicated licensing deals, where a single Netflix may not be able to generate enough revenue for an entire industry.

But there has to be a better way than simply adding more streaming platforms, one would think?

Instead of solely trying to stamp down on pirate sites, it might be a good idea to take a careful look at the supply side as well. At the moment, fragmentation is keeping pirate sites relevant.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.





Source link


Last week, news broke that a hacker, or hackers, had compromised the network of the American cable and television network HBO.

Those responsible sent out an email to reporters, announcing the prominent breach, and leaked files surfaced on the dedicated website Winter-leak.com.

While the latter is no longer accessible, the hackers are not done yet. Another curated batch of leaked files has now appeared online, revealing more Game of Thrones spoilers, marketing plans, and other confidential HBO files.

The first leak put a preliminary outline of the fourth episode of the current Game of Thrones season in the spotlight, and the second batch follows up with the same for the upcoming fifth episode.

Although the outline was prepared over a year ago, it likely contains various accurate spoilers, which we won’t repeat here.

Preliminary outline S07E05

The new data dump, which is a subsection of the 1.5 terabytes of data the hackers claimed to have in their possession, also lists a variety of other Game of Thrones related files.

Among other items, there’s a confidential cast list for the current season, a highly confidential “Game of Ideas” brief, an outline of GoT marketing strategies, and a Game of Thrones roadmap. The information all appears to be a few months old.

The hackers took a screenshot of several folders, where the files may have been taken from, as seen below.

Folders screenshot

In addition, the hackers provided ‘proof’ that they have emails, which according to AP point to HBO’s vice president for film programming Leslie Cohen.

Finally, the new batch contains a video letter to HBO CEO Richard Plepler, titled “First letter to HBO,” where a certain Mr. Smith takes credit for the hack. The letter offered to keep the information away from the public, in exchange for a ransom payment.

First letter to HBO

For spoiler-eager Game of Thrones fans the hack is a true treasure trove. However, like the first batch, no leaked episodes are included. And, based on another screenshot, these are probably not on the way either.

A “Series Screenshot” includes a list of likely compromised titles, such as The Deviant Ones and the previously leaked Barry, Ballers, and Room 104, but no Game of Thrones.

A leak of the fourth GoT episode did appear online late last week, but this wasn’t linked to the breach of HBO’s network. Still, HBO is likely not amused and will do everything in its power to catch those responsible.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.





Source link


For more than a decade, copyright holders have been sending ISPs takedown notices to alert them that their subscribers are sharing copyrighted material.

Under US law, providers have to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers “in appropriate circumstances” and increasingly they are being held to this standard.

Earlier this year several major record labels, represented by the RIAA, filed a lawsuit in a Texas District Court, accusing ISP Grande Communications of failing to take action against its pirating subscribers.

The ISP is not happy with the claims and was quick to submit a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. One of the arguments is that the RIAA’s evidence is insufficient.

In its original motion, Grande doesn’t deny receiving millions of takedown notices from piracy tracking company Rightscorp. However, it believes that these notices are flawed as Rightscorp is incapable of monitoring actual copyright infringements.

The RIAA disagreed and pointed out that their evidence is sufficient. They stressed that Rightcorp is able to monitor actual downloads, as opposed to simply checking if a subscriber is offering certain infringing content.

In a response from Grande, late last week, the ISP argues that this isn’t good enough to build a case. While Rightcorp may be able to track the actual infringing downloads to which the RIAA labels hold the copyrights, there is no such evidence provided in the present case, the ISP notes.

“Importantly, Plaintiffs do not allege that Rightscorp has ever recorded an instance of a Grande subscriber actually distributing even one of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works. Plaintiffs certainly have not alleged any concrete facts regarding such an act,” Grande’s legal team writes (pdf).

According to the ISP, the RIAA’s evidence merely shows that Rightscorp sent notices of alleged infringements on behalf of other copyright holders, who are not involved in the lawsuit.

“Instead, Plaintiffs generally allege that Rightscorp has sent notices regarding ‘various copyrighted works,’ encompassing all of the notices sent by Rightscorp on behalf of entities other than Plaintiffs.”

While the RIAA argues that this circumstantial evidence is sufficient, the ISP believes that there are grounds to have the entire case dismissed.

The record labels can’t hold Grande liable for secondary copyright infringement, without providing concrete evidence that their works were actively distributed by Grande subscribers, the company claims.

“Plaintiffs cannot allege direct infringement without alleging concrete facts which show that a Grande subscriber actually infringed one of Plaintiffs’ copyrights,” Grande’s lawyers note.

“For this reason, it is incredibly misleading for Plaintiffs to repeatedly refer to Grande having received ‘millions’ of notices of alleged infringement, as if those notices all pertained to Plaintiffs’ asserted copyrights.”

The “misleading” copyright infringement evidence argument is only one part of the ISPs defense. The company also notes that it has no control over what its subscribers do, nor do they control the BitTorrent clients that were allegedly used to download content.

If the court ruled otherwise, Grande and other ISPs would essentially be forced to become an “unpaid enforcement agent of the recording industry,” the company’s lawyers note.

The RIAA, however, sees things quite differently.

The music industry group believes that Grande failed to take proper action in response to repeat infringers and should pay damages to compensate the labels. This claim is very similar to the one BMG brought against Cox, where the latter was eventually ordered to pay $25 million.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.





Source link


For more than a decade, companies around the world have been trying to turn piracy into profit. For many this has meant the development of “copyright trolling” schemes, in which alleged pirates are monitored online and then pressured into cash settlements.

The shadowy nature of this global business means that its true scale will never be known but due to the controversial activities of some of the larger players, it’s occasionally possible to take a peek inside their operations. One such opportunity has just raised its head.

According to a lawsuit filed in California, James Davis is an attorney licensed in Oregon and California. Until two years ago, he was largely focused on immigration law. However, during March 2015, Davis says he was approached by an old classmate with an opportunity to get involved in a new line of business.

That classmate was Oregon lawyer Carl Crowell, who over the past several years has been deeply involved in copyright-trolling cases, including a deluge of Dallas Buyers Club and London Has Fallen litigation. He envisioned a place for Davis in the business.

Davis seemed to find the proposals attractive and became seriously involved in the operation, filing 58 cases on behalf of the companies involved. In common with similar cases, the lawsuits were brought in the name of the entities behind each copyrighted work, such as Dallas Buyers Club, LLC and LHF Productions, Inc.

In time, however, things started to go wrong. Davis claims that he discovered that Crowell, in connection with and on behalf of the other named defendants, “misrepresented the true nature of the Copyright Litigation Campaign, including the ownership of the works at issue and the role of the various third-parties involved in the litigation.”

Davis says that Crowell and the other defendants (which include the infamous Germany-based troll outfit Guardaley) made false representations to secure his participation, while holding back other information that might have made him think twice about becoming involved.

“Crowell and other Defendants withheld numerous material facts that were known to Crowell and the knowledge of which would have cast doubt on the value and ethical propriety of the Copyright Litigation Campaign for Mr. Davis,” the lawsuit reads.

Davis goes on to allege serious misconduct, including that representations regarding ownership of various entities were false and used to deceive him into participating in the scheme.

As time went on, Davis said he had increasing doubts about the operation. Then, in August 2016 as a result of a case underway in California, he began asking questions which resulted in him uncovering additional facts. These undermined both the representations of the people he was working for and his own belief in the “value and ethical propriety of the Copyright Litigation Campaign,” the lawsuit claims.

Davis said this spurred him on to “aggressively seek further information” from Crowell and other people involved in the scheme, including details of its structure and underlying support. He says all he received were “limited responses, excuses, and delays.”

The case was later dismissed by mutual agreement of the parties involved but of course, Davis’ concerns about the underlying case didn’t come to the forefront until the filing of his suit against Crowell and the others.

Davis says that following a meeting in Santa Monica with several of the main players behind the litigation campaign, he decided its legal and factual basis were unsound. He later told Crowell and Guardaley that he was withdrawing from their project.

As the result of the misrepresentations made to him, Davis is now suing the defendants on a number of counts, detailed below.

“Defendants’ business practices are unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent. Davis has suffered monetary damage as a direct result of the unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices set forth herein,” the lawsuit reads.

Requesting a trial by jury, Davis is seeking actual damages, statutory damages, punitive or treble damages “in the amount of no less than $300,000.”

While a payment of that not insignificant amount would clearly satisfy Davis, the prospect of a trial in which the Guardaley operation is laid bare would be preferable when the interests of its thousands of previous targets are considered.

Only time will tell how things will pan out but like the vast majority of troll cases, this one too seems destined to be settled in private, to ensure the settlement machine keeps going.

Note: The case was originally filed in June, only to be voluntarily dismissed. It has now been refiled in state court.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.





Source link


Next we have Arpit’s work upgrading Kodi’s add-on backend from Python2 to Python3

Python3 Support – arpitn30

My initial proposal was to support both Python2 and Python3 in Kodi by maintaining two versions of the same libraries and calling the required one depending upon the meta information in the XML files of the add-ons.

JUNE

During the first week of June, I was mostly understanding how everything was being built and what needs to be changed. I initially thought of updating the input to swig so that it can output python3, but I realised that Swig only changed the code to generic ML code which was given as an input to Groovy which with the help of Python Templates outputs Python code. So I cloned the Python templates directory and in the later weeks, I started to study and gradually change the python templates to that of Python3.

Aside from the major unicode string change, Python 3 changed a lot of things at the base level that drastically affected the Python-C API which was used to build the templates. So I went through each and every function and decided if it should return a unicode object or a byte object. I changed all the Python API function names, the module initialization, the Py_TPFLAGS, and changed the char data type in C to wchar data type. I also looked at all the data type which were being converted from C to Python and Python to C and inspected if any changes to data types in Python 3 like ‘map’ returning and iterable instead of lists and also changed the PyInt type which was no longer being used in Python3 API.

During the mid of June, when I started working to support both versions of Python, I was told to test if my code supported was even working with Python3 or not. So I forked my current working branch into 2 branches, one to test if my Python3 templates work correctly (testpy3) and the other to support both Python 2 and 3 (build2n3) and was working on them simultaneously. I also updated the HttpNetworkHandlers to Python3.

In Build2n3 branch, I changed paths of the Python libraries to the new Python3 directory, updated the Cmake files to download dependencies for both and keep them seperate.

In testpy3 branch, my main focus was to run the environment with as minimal changes as possible. So I removed 2 python template directories and made python3 the main directory. I had to change all the cmake files though to the updated dependency structure. After all the kinks had been removed Kodi was able to run with Python3 at the end of Phase 1 but the add-ons weren’t working yet.

JULY

The first thing I needed to do after the end of Phase 1 was to get the Python3 version of Kodi working, so that I could know if my code was working or not. The major trouble was that there wasn’t any way to know the error except the for only Log Entry of PythonModules not found. I skimmed through each and every documentation to figure out the changes which were made and the difference between them.

I found that the threads and GIL in Python3 are implemented differently than Python2. The acquirelock and releaselock functions are now deprecated and had to be changed with acquirethread which needed to have a saved state beforehand.

But the problem about the threads was still not solved. After a lot of testing and help from Paxxi and Rechi, we were able to identify the problem which was due to the duplication of state of _PyThreadState_current by Kodi and Python Bindings which resulted in the thread state being lost mid execution and we solved the problem by changing the cmake file in templates and adding the python binding directly to the xbmc core library.

After that, I started working on Build2n3 branch to apply the changes which were done in testpy3 branch and to figure out if it was possible to create two versions of libraries with the different implementation of threads even though it meant building Kodi twice while I was still looking into the ModuleNotFound error in the other branch which was still not resolved.

So I started working on Build2n3 branch. The problem I was having was with the env variables like PythonLibs and Python_include_dirs which can be only set to one of the versions at a time so we had to unset the variables after they were used and set them to the python3 directory.

The main point now was if it was practical to go for a version that supports both Python 2 and 3 or skip a version and release just a python3 version whle giving the developers time to port. Changing a major amount of code just to support Python 2 and 3 only to revert it back to the current code one or two versions later seemed impractical if not impossible due to changing the implementation of handling of threads. Taking in account the time it took, just to find the bug and get just the Python3 version right, Razze asked me to focus on just Python3 version for now.

So going back to testpy3 branch, after searching for several days, we found out that the function which initialized the modules did not add it to the built-in modules in Python3 which wasn’t mentioned in most of the Python3 Porting guides. So we added statements to explicitly add it to built-in modules. And finally the ModuleNotFound error was gone.

After fixing a few bugs like correcting the charset conversion to wchar, updating the execution script, Python 3 Kodi was finally working with the built-on Kodi libraries being perfectly imported.

In the next week, I checked the best way to make Kodi add-ons compatible with both versions of Python either by using __future__ packages or by using sys.major_version condition and I decided to go with the latter. I also made the versioncheck addon compatible with Python3 and added a pr to it. The addon was working perfectly with current version of Kodi as well as the Python3 version of Kodi.

Lastly, I decided to update the Python3 branch with the changes which were later made in the templates while working to support just Python3. So if we decide to go for a version to support both Python2 and 3, we can just fork from there.

I also added the PyFile function into Kodi itself thus removing the dependency on Py3c fileshim.h.

I also tested the debug and release versions of Python3 Kodi on Windows 64 bit and it worked without any problems.

The Future

I’ve tested my code with Ubuntu using the natively installed packages and it seems to work. And after a few days, I’ve been able to build the master branch in Linux using the target packages only. I intend to finish updating the files for target version for Posix systems by the end of next week. I will port some of the add-ons to Python3 later on, and I need some time to clean up the code as well. Although I removed the commented code which I left behind from Python2, I still have to give it a final review before submitting my code.





Source link