If the world’s leading record labels are to be believed, YouTube is the world’s largest repository of infringing content, content which makes YouTube lots of money.

YouTube counters with arguments that it always abides by the law (it does) by taking down infringing content as the DMCA required, when advised by rightsholders. It licenses content from the labels too, paying them billions in the process. However, the labels say that YouTube doesn’t pay them a fair rate.

To solve this problem, the labels are desperate to remove the safe harbor protections that YouTube currently enjoys. They want YouTube to become liable for infringing content on its platform while paying them rates similar to those paid by Spotify, for example. This position has proven impossible to achieve through negotiations so rightsholders headed to EU lawmakers instead.

Article 13, which needs little introduction, is currently winding its way through the EU’s corridors of power, hoping to solve all of these problems in one fell swoop. However, with giant companies pulling in opposite directions, negotiations have been drawn out, to say the least.

The latest proposals dated November 9 have now been published online and they give a pretty good indication of where things are going.

“Member States shall provide that an online content sharing service provider performs an act of communication to the public or an act of making available to the public when it gives the public access to copyright protected works or other protected subject matter uploaded by its users,” the proposal begins.

“An online content sharing service provider shall obtain an authorization [from rightsholders] in order to communicate or make available to the public works or other subject matter.”

Now, here’s the bit that’s scaring YouTube.

“When an online content sharing service provider performs an act of communication to the public or an act of making available to the public, it shall not be eligible for the exemption of liability provided for in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC for unauthorized acts of communication to the public and making available to the public..[..].”

YouTube can currently avoid liability for infringing content being made available to the public as long as it removes that content once it’s made aware of its existence. Under the statements above, YouTube would have no protection. This massive liability was referenced recently by YouTube’s CEO, who warned of dire consequences.

The latest proposals detail two options – Option 1 and Option 2 – that set out requirements for cooperation between rightsholders and the consequences of not doing so.

Option 1

In the absence of the authorization [from rightsholders, referenced above], Member States shall provide that online content sharing service providers and rightsholders have to cooperate with each other according to professional diligence to ensure that there are no unauthorized acts of communication to the public or making available to the public within the meaning of this Article of specific works or other subject matter identified by rightsholders for which the rightsholders have provided the service with relevant and necessary information….

In other words, “here’s a list of all our content and do not make it make it available to the public without obtaining an appropriate license first – or else.”

The “or else” is laid out in the subsequent paragraph of ‘Option 1’, along with potential exceptions.

Member States shall provide that an online sharing service provider is liable for unauthorized acts of communication to the public or making available to the public within the meaning of this Article of specific works or other subject matter identified by the rightsholders and for which the rightsholders have provided the service with relevant and necessary information unless it shows it has taken effective and proportionate steps to ensure that those works or other subject matter are not available on its service…..

Option 2

In the absence of the authorization [from rightsholders, referenced above], Member States shall provide that an online content sharing service provider is liable for unauthorized acts of communication to the public or making available to the public within the meaning of this Article unless it cooperates with rightsholders according to professional diligence by taking effective and proportionate steps to avoid the availability on its service of specific unauthorized works or other subject matter identified by rightsholders and for which the rightsholders have provided the service with relevant and necessary information…

Both Option 1 and Option 2 add potential exemptions for small platforms, consideration for the amount and type of work uploaded by users, the availability of “suitable and effective technologies” (filtering such as YouTube’s Content ID), the financial burden on a platform, and the number of copyright infringement notices received.

In any event, both options require online sharing providers to “act expeditiously to remove or disable to access to works or other subject matter” when unauthorized content is made available and both require that providers. They must then make “best efforts to prevent their future uploads in cooperation with rightsholders.” Phrased differently, it’s a take down and stay down regime.

Given the above, it’s easier to understand YouTube’s current stance in favor of upload filtering via its own established Content ID system. With this technology, the company seems in a position to deal with the key issues Article 13 presents. Whether this will force it to pay the labels a “fair price” for their content (in order to close the so-called ‘Value Gap’) will remain to be seen.

Further analysis from Julia Reda MEP here and the latest proposal document here (pdf) via Politico Europe.

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


Many podcasts use music to spice up their recordings.

This is fine when a track is properly licensed, or if it is podsafe, but using substantial portions of tracks without permission can become problematic.

This is what iBus Media, the company behind PokerNews – the self-proclaimed “largest poker website in the world” – just discovered. Last Friday the company was sued for willful copyright infringement in a California federal court.

The complaint was filed by a group of record labels and music publishers including UMG Recordings, Capitol Records, Universal Music, and PolyGram. They accuse PokerNews of distributing podcasts through its site and app, using significant portions of their tracks.

“Among the content made available by iBus Media on PokerNews, and through other forums, are hundreds of podcasts that intentionally incorporate significant portions of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted musical works,” the complaint reads.

This shouldn’t really come as a surprise, according to the music companies, who explain that PokerNews’ parent company was already notified of the issue several years ago.

“iBus Media was notified that it was infringing Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works nearly three years ago. Nevertheless, iBus Media continues to infringe. iBus Media’s infringement is therefore willful and deliberate,” they write.

Some allegedly infringing podcasts

The complaint lists hundreds of podcasts where infringing tracks allegedly appear. This has resulted in “substantial” and “irreparable harm,” the labels say, adding that PokerNews profits from this unauthorized use.

“In each of the Infringing Podcasts, Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works are prominently featured and undoubtedly used with the intention of making the podcasts more appealing to listeners,” the complaint reads.

PokerNews said it has taken steps to remove certain infringing content, but according to the music companies, the problem persists. They, therefore, demand $150,000 in statutory damages per infringed work.

With 46 copyrighted songs listed in the complaint, the maximum statutory damages go well beyond $6 million, but it’s possible that even more titles could be added when the case proceeds.

In addition, the music companies also request a preliminary and permanent injunction preventing PokerNews and any other iBus Media properties from infringing its copyrights going forward.

A copy of the complaint, obtained by TorrentFreak, 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


This week we have three newcomers in our chart.

Mission: Impossible – Fallout is the most downloaded movie.

The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are Web-DL/Webrip/HDRip/BDrip/DVDrip unless stated otherwise.

RSS feed for the articles of the recent weekly movie download charts.

This week’s most downloaded movies are:
Movie Rank Rank last week Movie name IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrents
1 (1) Mission: Impossible – Fallout 8.0 / trailer
2 (3) The Meg 5.9 / trailer
3 (2) The Equalizer 2 6.9 / trailer
4 (4) Incredibles 2 8.0 / trailer
5 (…) A Star is Born 8.2 / trailer
6 (5) Mile 22 6.1 / trailer
7 (6) Outlaw king 7.1 / trailer
8 (…) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs 7.4 / trailer
9 (7) Alpha 6.9 / trailer
10 (…) Crazy Rich Indians 7.2 / trailer

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


For well over a decade, content industry groups – mainly representing movie and music companies – have petitioned courts around the world to limit access to so-called pirate sites.

The theory is that by blocking sites that host or link to infringing content, piracy rates will go down, thus leading to increased sales. However, not much evidence is available to say that blocking is effective in achieving the latter two objectives, even if direct visits to pirate sites are reduced.

Nevertheless, entertainment groups continue to press ahead with blockades in many countries against a huge number of sites. Their latest target, streaming site Cuevana, is not only very popular in South America but also a bit of a veteran in the piracy scene.

Offering a wide range of movie and TV show content for instant viewing, Cuevana has been a Hollywood and TV company irritant for almost a decade. In 2012, an administrator of one variant of the site was arrested in Chile following a complaint by HBO, but not even that managed to kill the platform.

Available now via a number of domains, a partial solution to the Cuevana problem appears to be blocking. To that end, Disney, Fox, Paramount, Columbia, and others filed a complaint against the popular platform in Argentina, hoping that the courts would render the site inaccessible in the region. According to SimilarWeb data, Cuevana2.com is the country’s 109th most-popular site.

Following an initial application by rightsholders, the National Chamber in Criminal and Correctional Matters has now reversed an earlier ruling and ordered a provisional blockade of Cuevana.

Due to the site providing unlicensed access to works owned by the plaintiffs, the Court found that the site is in breach of Law 11.723, which covers intellectual property matters. Article 79 reportedly allows measures to prevent further infringement.

Like many popular under-siege pirate sites, Cuevana also relies on multiple domains and addresses to keep itself online and accessible. With this in mind, the Hollywood companies have filed requests to have all Cuevana-related domains blocked in Argentina, to prevent circumvention of their injunction.

Much like The Pirate Bay, Cuevana appears to have many namesakes which may, or may not, be linked to the official platform.

According to local media reports, the court found that blocking ‘pirate’ websites is an “appropriate and proportional measure” to prevent infringement, particularly in the case of Cuevana which has been infringing copyrights for many years.

While Cuevana variants have always been popular in South America and other Spanish-speaking regions, the platform attracted international attention in 2014 when the MPAA reported it to the United States Trade Representative.

Following the success of its web-based portal, the pirate site began offering Cuevana Storm, a Popcorn Time-like streaming solution, utilizing torrents under the hood. It now appears to have reverted largely to web-based streaming, relying on file-hosting sites for content.

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 few weeks ago, the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), asked the public for input on ways to improve consumer privacy.

The NTIA wants to increase the privacy of users through more transparency, user control, minimization of data collection, and security, among other things. This is particularly important when it comes to online platforms.

“Often, especially in the digital environment, these products and services depend on the collection, retention, and use of personal data about their users,” NTIA wrote.

“Users must therefore trust that organizations will respect their interests, understand what is happening with their personal data, and decide whether they are comfortable with this exchange.”

The request came a few months after the EU’s new privacy regulation, the GDPR, was implemented. The GDPR requires many online services and tools to tighten their privacy policies, which also affects domain registrars.

As of June 2018, ICANN implemented a temporary measure to restrict access to personal data that would previously have been available through WHOIS, unless explicit permission is given. A welcome privacy change to many domain registrants, but anti-piracy groups are not happy.

While the limited WHOIS data is supposed to improve user privacy, the MPAA tells the NTIA that the opposite is true. They believe that opening it up again “will advance privacy while protecting prosperity and innovation,” in line with NTIA’s aims.

The MPAA is taking a different approach when compared to most of the other comments we’ve seen. For example, more transparency is generally seen as services being more open about what personal information they collect and share.

Or, as the NTIA puts it: “Users should be able to easily understand how an organization collects, stores, uses, and shares their personal information.”

The MPAA says that when it comes to WHOIS data, sharing more personal data in public – as it was in the past – benefits the public at large. Sharing personal data of all website owners allows visitors to check who they are dealing with.

“Users are not ‘reasonably informed’ or ’empowered to meaningfully express privacy preferences’ if they cannot determine the entity behind a website,” the MPAA explains.

“Continued access to WHOIS data will help consumers identify domain name registrants and web site operators when necessary, advancing the NTIA’s user-centric outcome of transparency.”

In other words, the MPAA believes that it is important for WHOIS data to be ‘transparent’ so the public can decide whether they can trust a website with their personal details. That’s a bit of a shift when compared to how other commenters approached this question.

Of course, there’s also a downside to public WHOIS data. In the past, other organizations have warned that WHOIS details may make it easier for criminals to harass website owners, as their digital and real-life addresses are listed publicly.

The Hollywood group realizes that there are possible concerns. It notes, however, that a risk analysis weighs in favor of restoring full WHOIS access, adding that registrants only have to provide “mundane” information.

“The risk to registrants is also comparatively small, as they, too, have long operated with these types of obligations and the information they must provide is relatively mundane data used to contact them,” MPAA writes.

The group, therefore, calls on the NTIA to ensure that the original WHOIS requirements are restored. Not just to help Hollywood to fight piracy, but also to address other crimes, including sex trafficking and illegal drug sales.

“This overbroad application of the GDPR is already hindering the ability of law enforcement agencies and others to investigate illicit behavior — including sex trafficking, unlawful sale of opioids, cyber-attacks, identity theft, and theft of intellectual property,” the MPAA warns.

Concerns about limited WHOIS data are not new. Previously, a group of 50 organizations warned that it makes pirates harder to catch, which is of course the MPAA’s main stake in the matter.

A copy of MPAA’s full submission 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


For many years, Ukraine has been openly criticized for not doing enough to tackle both online and offline piracy.

The country is known for its high piracy rates but enforcement against local pirate and gray-area hosting platforms has been sporadic and largely ineffective.

According to an announcement from Ukraine’s Ministry of Internal Affairs, however, fresh action has taken down at least one and possibly many piracy-linked Internet resources.

The Ministry says that officers from the Kiev Department of Cyberpolicies, together with investigators from the Vasylkivsky police department, have executed a warrant in the south-eastern city of Zaporizhzhia. Their target was a 24-year-old man suspected of running the pirate streaming portal OneMov.net and several other pirate sites.

OneMov.net – shutdown notice (Image credit: Ukraine Government)

The authorities say that the individual “reproduced and distributed audiovisual works” belonging to Universal City Studios LLLP, which is represented locally by the Ukrainian Anti-Piracy Association.

The government department says that OneMov attracted attention due to its international appeal. Although it was administered from Ukraine, the platform carried movies that were mostly in English, with titles later appearing in Ukrainian and Russian.

After carrying out what is being described as an “authorized search”, police say they discovered items linking the man to the platform.

“In his apartment, the system unit of a personal computer containing an electronic control panel of the site was removed. In addition, a router was found that was used to administer the specified web resource and bank cards, which included funds from advertising on the specified site,” the Ministry of Internal Affairs said.

An officer searching the suspect’s PC (Image credit: Ukraine Government)

The authorities claim that the arrested man could also be the brains behind another 10 pirate sites but at the time of writing, the names of those sites haven’t been released. However, a screenshot of what appears to be the suspect’s computer reveals links not only to OneMov, but also MovDB.net and OneStream.cc, both of which are currently inaccessible.

The arrested man is being investigated for offenses under Part 3, Article 176 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (Infringement of Copyright and Related Rights) and could receive a prison sentence of up to six years.

Earlier this year the United States Trade Representative (USTR) kept Ukraine on its Priority Watch List (pdf), accusing government agencies of using pirated software and a “failure to implement an effective means to combat the widespread online infringement of copyright in Ukraine.”

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


Over the years we have closely followed various reports on Internet traffic changes, specifically in relation to BitTorrent.

Many of these came from the Canadian broadband management company Sandvine, which often focused on the popularity of different types of traffic in specific regions.

That was also the case a few weeks ago when its latest report revealed which sources generate most upload and download traffic in various regions of the world. This revealed that BitTorrent is far from dead.

What it didn’t reveal, however, is which traffic sources consume the most traffic worldwide when both upstream and downstream traffic are combined. This broad overview was missing from earlier reports as well, but in a new update Sandvine now fills this gap.

When all traffic from sources worldwide is combined, Netflix comes out as the clear winner with 13.75% of the total traffic share. The streaming giant is followed by HTTPS Media data (12.25%) and YouTube (10.51%) respectively.

BitTorrent comes in fifth place with 4.10% of all Internet traffic globally, which is mostly driven by the EMEA (Europe, the Middle East and Africa) and APAC (Asia-Pacific) regions.

The full picture, courtesy of Sandvine

“As expected, the top four applications are all video, and also not surprisingly, BitTorrent is fifth overall – strongly boosted by the utter dominance on the upstream in EMEA and APAC,” Sandvine’s Cam Cullen notes.

“This is a pretty significant number since downstream traffic is an order of magnitude larger than the upstream traffic totals worldwide.”

Looking at the upstream and downstream totals in various regions, we see that Netflix accounts for nearly 17% of all traffic from the Americas. Interestingly, BitTorrent doesn’t make it into the top 10, sitting well below 2%.

BitTorrent traffic is most popular in the APAC region where it sits in second place with 7.87%, generating more traffic than both Netflix and YouTube.

It’s interesting to see the bigger picture, where both upload and download traffic is combined on both fixed and mobile connections.

This offers a unique snapshot of Internet traffic sources in 2018. Hopefully, Sandvine will continue to make these data available going forward, so we can track changes over time.

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


As the heated debate over the EU’s controversial Article 13 proposals continues, YouTube is becoming ever more vocal.

Relatively silent in the run-up to the September vote which saw the European Parliament vote in favor of proposals put forward by Axel Voss’ EPP group, YouTube now seems very concerned over the possibility of being held liable for infringing content uploaded to its platform.

“While we support the goals of article 13, the European Parliament’s current proposal will create unintended consequences that will have a profound impact on the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people,” Wojcicki wrote in blog post earlier this week.

Wojcicki’s statement carried a stark warning that liability for YouTube under Article 13 could force the platform to block content from EU citizens. No company could take on such a financial risk, she said.

Thus far, the Article 13 debate has been polarized, with the entertainment industries hugely in favor and companies like YouTube and pro-Internet freedom groups strongly against. Now, however, a new development has created an interesting split in the ranks, with Julia Reda, MEP for the Pirate Party, warning that YouTube is now lobbying in favor of upload filters.

As detailed in a release from Reda’s office this morning, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki has made a number of statements in recent weeks that indicate that the video hosting platform is in favor of pre-filtering content before it’s made available to the public.

Of course, Google has its ContentID filtering system already in place, meaning that it would be in pole position to further dominate the video hosting space, if the filtering option is adopted by the EU.

“The fact that Youtube is now publicly lobbying for mandatory upload filters is not surprising in the least. By introducing ContentID, YouTube has already proven that is is very much capable of developing filters for certain types of content, such as music,” Reda explains.

“If the entire market was obliged to install such filters, YouTube would not only be miles ahead in of its competitors in the development of such technologies, it would also be in a position to sell its filters to smaller platforms. Large platforms such as YouTube would grow further and be presented with an entirely new business model. The significantly smaller EU competition would be left behind.”

In common with many activists, Reda is passionately against the idea of content being filtered. The MEP points to numerous failures of YouTube’s ContentID system that have led to entirely legal content being blocked or deleted from the platform. Reda also warns of a slippery slope where filtering leads to other unintended consequences, such as the stifling of copyright exceptions including parody or quotation.

During October, Wojcicki posted on the company’s blog, warning that Article 13 could “drastically change the Internet.” The piece was effectively a rallying cry to millions of YouTube creators, who were urged to take to social media to protest the proposed legislation.

Now, however, Reda is warning YouTubers against taking YouTube’s stance as their own, noting that its CEO has been in Strasbourg lobbying in favor of upload filters and is only interested in avoiding legal liability.

“The fear of many YouTubers that internet culture and independent creatives will be sacrificed in this reform is certainly justified. They should however not make the mistake of singing from YouTube’s hymn sheet, whose CEO has only been outspoken against the liability of platforms for copyright infringements, while presenting mandatory upload filters as a reasonable compromise,” Reda says.

“If you look more closely at the countless videos, it’s apparent that most YouTubers are warning of the exact problems that YouTube’s ContentID upload filters are already causing today: unjustified copyright strikes and the automated deletion of entirely legal creative content. YouTube and its YouTubers have very different interests in this debate.”

The fact that Julia Reda is now speaking out so clearly against YouTube is likely to prove somewhat of a conundrum to the music industry critics who have been regularly attacking her on Twitter.

While she has risen above many embarrassingly childish accusations, some have claimed – without any evidence – that she’s somehow shilling for YouTube-owner Google in respect of Article 13.

Clearly, the battle lines in this war aren’t so easily drawn.

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 Hollywood has its own problems with movie piracy, the position in India is arguably more pressing.

Many of the country’s top movie titles are immediately pirated and placed online, much to the disappointment of film companies nationwide. Aggressive site-blocking appears to have little effect so, in association with the authorities, the problem is being tackled at the source.

Many leaks happen when individuals or groups illegally record movies in cinemas, which is often simply a case of finding a screen and pointing a camcorder or phone towards it. In tandem, there are concerns that in some cases, theater owners themselves may be part of the piracy conspiracy. That, however, is leading to what appears to be overzealous policing.

When movies are shown, it’s common for watermarks to be embedded in the performance, which allows content security companies to trace where recordings take place. Armed with this information, copyright holders are then filing complaints against theater owners, who are reportedly being arrested by police, in the absence of evidence they’re even involved.

This has led to a plea to the Madras High Court by the Film Exhibitors Association (FEA), requesting that police are restrained from making arrests without evidence that theater owners are directly involved with unauthorized ‘camming’ of theatrical performances.

“The film producers were filing complaints against theater owners falsely accusing the latter as being responsible for such piracy and the resulting losses caused to the film producers,” the Times of India reports, citing the FEA.

“Police were arresting or attempting to arrest the theater owners merely on the basis of such complaints, without any inquiry. This makes the theater owner to run from pillar to post to obtain appropriate bail or anticipatory bail. The theater owners cannot be made responsible for all cases of piracy.”

The FEA added that it’s impossible to search all members of an audience for hidden cameras, whether they’re present in phones, pens, or even spectacles. Public prosecutor A Natarajan countered, telling the court that calls for a blanket ban on arrests can’t be entertained and should be denied.

With that, Justice Puspha Sathyanarayana issued an interim direction, ordering the Tamil Nadu Home Secretary and the Director General of Police to organize a meeting of affected stakeholders (film companies, distributors, exhibitors) to try and reach an amicable solution.

The case was adjourned until November 28, 2018.

In an effort to reduce camcorder piracy, last month the Tamil Nadu Theater Owners Association laid down a strict set of rules designed to prevent pirates from recording the latest movies and uploading them to the Internet.

All cinemas in the southern state of Tamil Nadu were told to saturate their entire sites with CCTV cameras, including projection rooms and customer seating areas plus parking and entrance areas. It is not yet clear whether that has happened or if the measures are having any effect.

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


This morning, the Asia Video Industry Association’s (AVIA) Coalition Against Piracy (CAP), which represents the interests of groups including the MPA and other major companies, revealed the results of a commissioned YouGov survey.

“In a recent study of the content viewing behavior of Thai consumers, it was revealed that 45% of consumers use a TV box which can be used to stream pirated television and video content,” CAP writes.

“These TV boxes, also known as Illicit Streaming Devices (ISDs), allow users to access hundreds of pirated television channels and video-on-demand content, usually with a low annual fee.”

In the above paragraph, the precise definition of “consumer” isn’t particularly clear. Also, the use of the phrase “can be used” is open to ambiguity. TorrentFreak spoke with Neil Gane, General Manager of CAP, who was happy to clarify on both fronts.

“The survey focused on Internet-connected/online consumers. [T]he survey also included consumers who are online and yet don’t view video content, as all respondents were given the option to select ‘Not applicable – I don’t watch television and video content’,” Gain explained.

Gane further clarified that the 45% of consumers does not include users who use general “piracy-capable” devices such as computers, laptops, mobile phones, or Firestick/Chromecast dongles etc.

CAP’s General Manager added that while most devices “can be used” to stream pirated content, the survey was “solely focused on TV boxes pre-loaded with infringing app(s), which by definition would make them illicit streaming devices (ISDs).”

Examples of ‘pirate applications’ found on such devices include Mango TV, HD Playbox, and U Play, which provide access to streaming movies and TV shows, mainly on Android.

With the details established, the claims of the effects of piracy-enabled devices are more easily digested. CAP says that of the 45% of consumers who bought such a device, “more than two in three (69%) stated that they canceled all or some of their subscriptions to legal pay TV services.”

The YouGov research also established that younger people are attracted to piracy-configured devices. They are particularly popular among 18 to 24-year-olds, “with more than three in four (77%) canceling legitimate subscription services as a result of owning ISDs, especially international online subscriptions (40%).”

Of course, no recent anti-piracy announcement would be complete without claims about malware running riot.

“The damage that piracy does to the creative industries is without dispute,” Gane explains.

“However, the damage done to consumers themselves, because of the nexus between content piracy and malware, is only beginning to be recognized. Piracy websites and applications typically have a ‘click happy’ user base, and, as such, are being used more and more as clickbait to distribute malware.”

There is little doubt that many users of pirate websites are indeed “click happy” in their quest for free content and that can lead them into trouble. However, we’ve covered malware issues before (specifically in respect of so-called “Kodi Boxes”) and found nothing to suggest that there is a significant risk to consumers.

Of course, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a risk with other software pre-installed on set-top boxes – it’s a computer after all, and all such devices are vulnerable to infection. That means that as a minimum, all users should consider running anti-virus software on all devices capable of doing so.

That being said, set-top boxes are isolated machines that rarely carry much of value to malware distributors. Most people don’t browse on these machines, send email, or enter any personal or banking information. There is always some risk involved, but in the set-top box environment, it’s almost certainly minimized.

Speaking with TF, Neil Gane said that the study wasn’t related to malware but he stands by his references to the “piracy/malware nexus”. He also pointed us to a September 2018 EU report that found that trojans and malware can be found on pirate sites, leading to “not only financial losses, but also theft of personal data and other risks of unwanted access and control.”

While that’s true, the same report also stated that copyright-infringing websites and streaming services are not normally considered to be dominant sources of malware.

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