Last year, Hong Kong-based broadcaster Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB) applied for a blocking injunction in Australia against several unauthorized IPTV services.

Under the Copyright Act, the broadcaster asked the Federal Court to order ISPs including Telstra, Optus, Vocus, and TPG plus their subsidiaries to block access to seven Android-based services named as A1, BlueTV, EVPAD, FunTV, MoonBox, Unblock, and hTV5.

TVB’s application was unusual in that it not only required ISPs to block URLs, domains and IP addresses related to the technical operation of the services, but also hosting platforms akin to Google Play and Apple’s App Store that host the app.

Back in May, due to the relative complexity of the application, Justice Nicholas reserved his decision, telling TVB that his ruling could take a couple of months after receiving his “close attention.”

In a ruling handed down by the Federal Court yesterday, TVB discovered it had been worth the wait.

Justice Nicholas notes in his judgment that the primary purpose of the illicit streaming set-top boxes is to facilitate the infringement of copyright by making such material available in Australia without permission from copyright owners. He also notes, however, that many people using these devices did not know they are infringing copyright.

“Be that as it may, I regard as flagrant the copyright infringements of the persons who have made the TVB broadcasts available online, including those persons responsible for the establishment and maintenance of the target online locations that make it possible for users of the streaming devices to view the TVB broadcasts either in close to real time or at some later time using the VOD service,” the Judge writes.

In an earlier hearing, TVB was confronted with the fact that some of the content it broadcasts has uncertain copyright status in Australia. While Hong Kong is a member of the World Trade Organization, it is not a party to the 1961 Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations.

The Judge says that considering the low volume of that content, blocking would not be an issue.

“I accept that access to some of content that was originally broadcast (ie. which was not pre-recorded) in which copyright does not subsist may also be blocked, but my strong impression from the evidence is that this is likely to constitute a relatively small proportion of the total content the subject of TVB’s television broadcasts in Hong Kong,” he notes.

“This is not a case, in my view, where blocking orders, if made, will significantly curtail non-infringing use of the streaming devices.”

The Judge adds that other than blocking, TVB has no other practical remedies available to curtail infringement of its rights. This is due to the likelihood that the operators of the service are “almost certainly” based overseas and “impossible” to track down.

“Obtaining any form of effective injunctive relief against them in Australia is not a realistic option,” Justice Nicholas adds.

ISPs including Telstra, Optus, Vocus and TPG now have 15 days to block the “online locations” supplying content and services to the infringing set-top boxes in Australia. Meanwhile, TVB continues its battle against pirates.

“Actions are being taken by TVB in Singapore and other overseas markets to block piracy websites. We will keep in contact with the Hong Kong government to push similar site-blocking in Hong Kong,” a TVB spokesman said.

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

Last week the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that ISPs are entitled to compensation for looking up the details of alleged copyright infringers.

This verdict, a result of a dispute between Rogers and movie company Voltage Pictures, can have far-reaching consequences as it makes so-called “copyright trolling” more expensive.

However, there is another nugget in the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion that may be helpful to people who are wrongfully accused. In his comments, Justice Russell Brown notes that the owner of an IP-address isn’t automatically guilty.

“It must be borne in mind that being associated with an IP address that is the subject of a notice under s. 41.26(1)(a) is not conclusive of guilt,” he writes.

While this comment doesn’t change the outcome of this case, it certainly carries some weight. And Justice Brown is even more specific, explaining why the person connected to the IP-address isn’t automatically guilty.

“As I have explained, the person to whom an IP address belonged at the time of an alleged infringement may not be the same person who has shared copyrighted content online.

“It is also possible that an error on the part of a copyright owner would result in the incorrect identification of an IP address as having been the source of online copyright infringement,” Justice Brown notes.

From the Court’s ruling

The comments were highlighted by Law Professor Michael Geist earlier this week, who notes that this is good news for accused file-sharers. The Supreme Court comments clearly suggest that an IP-address alone may not be good enough to build a case.

In other words, future defendants have a powerful reference to highlight in their defense.

“While some may feel that they have little alternative but to settle, the Supreme Court’s language sends a reminder that IP address alone may be insufficient evidence to support a claim of copyright infringement,” Geist says.

“Those that fight back against overly aggressive notices may find the claims dropped. Alternatively, contesting a claim would require copyright owners to tender more evidence than just an allegation supported by an identifiable IP address.”

For an on-the-ground analysis, TorrentFreak reached out to James Plotkin of law firm CazaSaikaley, who represented two defendants in file-sharing cases recently.

He also sees Justice Brown’s statement as favorable to defendants who have not shared any infringing works themselves.

“When one reads the first two sentences of paragraph 41 together, it appears Brown J. is intimating, though not outright saying, that only the person who shares the work might be liable for infringement,” Plotkin tells us.

While it’s good news for defendants, the attorney also notes that the Court’s comment is made “obiter dictum.” This means that it’s part of the non-precedential part of the opinion, which is open to debate.

“That said, it still holds persuasive value, especially since it was stated on behalf of eight members of the Supreme Court,” Plotkin adds.

For now, file-sharing cases in Canada will continue, but perhaps the Court’s comments will inspire defendants and their attorneys to push back a bit more, when appropriate.

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

Last week it became evident that a new crackdown against IPTV providers based in the UK and Southern Ireland was underway.

In the first wave of action, a 41-year-old man and a 30-year-old woman were arrested in Bursledon, Hampshire, and detained under suspicion of offenses under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and money laundering. The pair were accused of illegally offering content from companies including Sky and BT Sport.

Soon after, four more arrests were announced in Southern Ireland. Two men, aged 42 and 45, and two women, aged 37 and 40, were detained following house searches in Crumlin, Dublin and Ashbourne, Co Dublin. All were arrested and questioned under the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 and the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010.

Shortly after, a Europol statement said the arrests had taken place after a complex year-long investigation involving the Garda National Bureau of Criminal Investigation, Police Scotland, Trading Standards, the UK Intellectual Property Office, the Audiovisual Anti-Piracy Alliance (AAPA) and Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT).

The law enforcement agency also noted that a warrant had been executed in Scotland but provided no additional detail. A statement just published on the official website of FAB IPTV, an IPTV provider known to operate from addresses in Scotland, appears to fill in the blanks.

“On the morning of Tuesday September 11th a co-operation raid took place on one of the administrators homes whilst on holiday led by EUROPOL/Police Scotland and members from SKY/BT/Virgin/Possibly HBO and other Film/TV organizations. A number of devices were seized,” the statement reads.

“It is on that note we will no longer be operational and will come to a COMPLETE close. Unfortunately nothing else is known right now as no information will be given on the case and that this will take many months.”

FAB IPTV was incorporated in Scotland under the name FAB Hosting Ltd on February 22, 2017. A notice for compulsory strike-off was published on May 15, 2018. On July 30, 2018, the company was dissolved after filing no accounts.

The service continued to operate but during August its operators advised customers that it would eventually shut down.

“Unfortunately we are no longer accepting new subscriptions or renewals of current subscriptions due to closure. Any active subs will be honored until expiry,” the announcement noted.

“We are sorry for any inconvenience this has caused and we wish you luck with your future viewing.”

The statement

With some of FAB’s customers having purchased subscriptions that are yet to expire, many are going to be out of pocket following the closure announcement. Equally, resellers of FAB’s service, who will have invested much greater sums, will also find themselves in the red. However, FAB indicates that funds could be reclaimed.

“I/We would advise that anyone whom would like a refund and are within 180 days as per PayPal limitations you should raise a dispute as we have zero access to any financial accounts associated with FAB,” the statement reads.

Whether former subscribers and resellers will choose to elevate their heads above the parapet will remain to be seen, but given what FAB has to say next, the option to cut their losses might be easiest for most.

“Please note this is an active investigation and doing so [asking for a refund] may bring action towards you so proceed with caution,” FAB warns.

“I/We highly suggest taking precautions if you have used your REAL information with us or any IPTV service as this is only the beginning of what is a huge fight against illicit services. More information will come in due course no doubt on EUROPOL’s website and other IPTV related media sites. Thank you for being loyal to FAB and stay safe,” the announcement concludes.

While it’s simplicity itself to fill in fake details when signing up to a service like FAB, many people use their real identities. However, the operator of a similar service previously told TF that they never check if names and addresses are real, meaning that people can fill anything in with no consequences.

Finally, it’s worth noting that at least as far as TF’s previous investigations revealed, FAB IPTV and its administrators were extremely easy to track down and identify. Quite why such services operate with such a low level of security and privacy isn’t immediately clear but now the perhaps inevitable costs will have to be counted.

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 Association of Independent Music (AIM) represents the interests of more than 800 independent music companies in the UK.

With online copyright infringement as one of the major threats, the organization also offers assistance on the anti-piracy front.

Earlier this year, AIM teamed up with anti-piracy tracking outfit MUSO to help its members remove pirated links from the web. With MUSO’s automatic takedown service, the labels can remove infringing URLs with minimal effort.

This week AIM sent out a press release showing how much has been achieved over the past four months. The results, shared by AIM’s Head of Legal & Business Affairs Gee Davy are impressive indeed.

“AIM’s partnership with MUSO began in May this year, and to see 5 million takedowns achieved already reflects the speed and efficiency with which MUSO has covered the catalogs across the independent music community,” Davy notes.

“Our members report that they are delighted with the service, which not only protects their releases from online piracy, but creates a visual dashboard to track piracy and protection activity in real time.”

While the comments suggest that pirated content was pulled offline, the reality appears to be quite different.

The press release doesn’t mention it, but, from what we can see, the five million takedown requests were (nearly) all targeted at Google. This means that no infringing content was taken down there, only search results.

Looking more closely at all the takedown requests MUSO sent to Google, on behalf of AIM, an even more disturbing picture emerges.

Google’s Transparency Report confirms that AIM sent close to five million ‘pirate’ URLs to the search engine. However, as it turns out, the vast majority of all reported URLs were not removed. And for a good reason.

Most of the links that were reported are simply not in Google’s search index. So, logically, there is nothing to remove.

Not removed

This also means that MUSO and AIM shouldn’t refer to these as removed links, or even takedown notices. These are reports of “non-existent” search results.

While Google previously noted that it accepts takedown notices for these types of URLs in some cases, which could end up on some sort of preemptive blacklist, there is more reason for concern.

Not only are most of the reported links missing from Google’s search results, they don’t always link to anything infringing on the pirate sites either.

Here’s a random sample that was taken from one of the recent takedown requests. This shows search results on a Zooqle proxy in various languages, which appears to be automated.

Takedown request

As mentioned before, these links were never indexed by Google. However, even the torrent site in question doesn’t return any infringing content, as the searches in question return no results.

No results

The above suggests that most of these takedown efforts are rather pointless. The URLs are not in Google’s index and even if they were, many would not point to infringing content.

To us, it appears that many of these notices are automatically generated by using variations of search strings on pirate sites, whether these point to actual pirated content or not. This is something we have spotted before.

This makes it easy to get to 5 million ‘takedowns’ in four months, of course, but it is rather futile.

TorrentFreak asked both AIM and MUSO for a comment yesterday. Both confirmed receipt of our inquiry, but at the time of publication, we have yet to receive a response to our questions.

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