Protecting children in our society is one of the noblest things one can do. In both the physical and digital worlds, children need high-quality guidance.

While most of this support should come from parents and others closely involved with a child’s upbringing, groups like UK non-profit Internet Matters are there to provide advice when the adults around need help themselves.

This week the London-based group teamed up with the Mumsnet website to publish a guide titled “Internet safety and the dangers of digital piracy.” Perhaps unsurprisingly given recent trends, the report focuses on the apparent threats posed by “fully-loaded” set-top boxes running Kodi and similar applications.

“[I]f your children stream illegal content online, also known as digital piracy, it can expose them and you to cyber threats, disturbing pop-ups and unexpected harmful content,” the guide notes.

“The risks typically associated with digital piracy can take place on dodgy websites and preloaded streaming devices, sometimes known as Kodi boxes, but they can also occur through any number of illegitimate apps on mobiles, tablets or smart TVs.”

While some of the claims made in the guide are overly generic, it does make some very good points. Accessing content from illegal streaming sites rarely comes with the age restrictions available on services such as Netflix, for example, so parents should always be aware of the risks and act in a supervisory role.

“Explicit adverts may pop up and there’s no standard organization of age-restricted content, meaning 18+ films like Fifty Shades can sit right next to U-rated content such as Finding Nemo,” the guide notes.

The guide also correctly states that some fully-loaded devices can come with porn apps installed. Again, it’s the responsibility of the parent to ensure that their children aren’t left unsupervised to use such a device, particularly (given their child’s age) they were probably the one to buy it.

There are few complaints when it comes to the guide’s legal advice either. As part of the EU, streaming copyrighted content in the UK is illegal, as is marketing and selling pre-loaded devices configured for piracy. All ok so far, but then the guide mixes apples and oranges to spook the unknowledgeable reader.

“Whilst families haven’t yet been the target of police investigations, the consequences
of watching pirated content should be considered, both from a legal standpoint
and the inappropriate content children could be exposed to,” the guide notes.

“For example, a man was recently hit with an £85,000 demand for sharing his stream of a pay-to-view boxing match on Facebook with over 4,250 people.”

The kind of person who can get value from this kind of basic guide isn’t going to appreciate the differences between someone who streams to the public and someone who watches a stream at home. Simply reading “£85,000 demand” might be enough for them to throw their device in the trash (which may have been the intention), but perhaps we’re being a little bit picky here.

Statements like these, however, deserve no such leeway.


Like the majority of claims in the guide, this statement is offered without citing a source. So, we contacted Internet Matters to ask where this information had been obtained. Unfortunately (and despite having several days to do so) they didn’t respond.

The reason we asked is simple: we don’t believe either element of the claim is true. So, we approached some experts for their opinions. We asked two questions based on the precise wording of the Internet Matters claim.

1. Are pirate sites the most common source of malware infection? If not, what is the most common source/vector?

2. Does streaming pirated media put devices at direct risk of infection?

The first responses came back from respected security expert Mikko Hypponen from F-Secure.

“Pirate sites are not the most common source for infections, and it hasn’t been since the early 1990s. Today, the most common ways of getting infected are via malicious email attachments, browser plugins and extensions and web exploit kits,” he told TorrentFreak.

“Streaming pirated media is not a security risk, as long as the user does not install additional applications, browser plugins or codecs to stream.”

We also received a detailed response from Luis Corrons, Security Evangelist at Avast, who told us that the Internet overall is the most common source of malware, but websites are not the sole driver.

“If we look at some of the biggest malware outbreaks, like SQLSlammer, Blaster or the recent WannaCry attack, they all are network worms that have infected millions of computers without having to visit any webpage,” Corrons explained.

“The problem with pirate sites is that it’s hard to know who is behind them. If you visit YouTube or Vimeo, most people are familiar with their parent companies. But in the case of some obscure websites, there’s a chance they could have been built by cybercriminals looking to infect visitors, steal credentials and personal information.”

While it’s certainly possible that pirate sites can be a source of malware, Bogdan Botezatu, Senior E-Threat Analyst at Bitdefender, told us it is extremely difficult to assess the amount of malware on pirate sites, not least since many sites come and go on a regular basis.

However, he did indicate that when content from pirate sites is consumed via set-top devices, there’s less of a risk than when people access it via a web browser.

“Since these web services offer streaming through Kodi add-ons, the user never really get to interact with their home page, but rather with the Kodi dashboard. Most of these addons load content from [pirate] websites and stream it via Kodi. This dramatically minimizes the chances of the user interacting with rogue ads or deceptive links,” Botezatu explained.

So does Botezatu agree with Internet Matters when they claim that streaming pirated media itself “puts devices at direct risk of infection”?

“No, not directly, although I would not recommend anyone to resort to this,” Botezatu said.

“With extremely few exceptions where some vulnerabilities in the user’s video player could be exploited to run arbitrary code, media streaming is safe. I am unaware of any campaigns that use movie files for malware dissemination other than the Wimad Trojan back in 2012.”

The stance that streaming media is not inherently dangerous is shared by Corrons at AVAST.

“Streaming media does not pose any particular risk level of infection. It doesn’t matter if the media is pirated or not,” he said.

While it’s a bit of a shame that Internet Matters had to claim things that aren’t true to drive its point home, they’re by no means the only organization to do so.

Earlier this year, the Industry Trust for IP Awareness made a similar claim, noting that “Illegal streaming websites are now the number one propagation mechanism for malicious software as 97% of them contain malware.”

With assistance from Adam Kujawa, Director of Malware Intelligence at Malwarebytes, we debunked that statement back in February. It’s disappointing but not entirely surprising we’ve having to do so again several months later.

There are plenty of valid reasons for not letting kids loose with piracy-configured boxes, not least since they could see content that adults might prefer them not to. Notably, however, the exact same thing can be said about YouTube and Facebook, or even the Internet in general.

When anyone uses the Internet for anything there are security risks, so parents should always tell their kids to be cautious when they’re online, no matter what the device or content being consumed.

Surprisingly, the Internet Matters report – which has a strong focus on malware – doesn’t even mention installing anti-virus or anti-malware software to protect devices. Concerned parents should note that both can be obtained for free and are easy to install.

The Internet Matters guide (which despite the criticism does contain great advice on parental responsibility) 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


Every software developer knows that keeping code documentation up-to-date is difficult and time consuming, specially if code in need of said documentation is changing fast. Like, Flash fast. Among code documentation, the process of compiling the code is probably the poorest of cousins. After all, developers do know how to compile the software they write and writing documentation is not as glamorous as writing code. Given a choice, developers will always choose the latter over the former.

Though that was not Kodi’s case, for years our build guides were spread between Kodi’s Wiki and GitHub, generating confusion. To make matters worse, guides were often contradicting, not kept up-to-date and generally lacking in detail. To solve this predicament, we decided that Kodi’s build guides should be kept alongside the code, where developers can easily update them when code changes.

Writing build guides might seem simple. It isn’t. On one hand, people writing the guides are usually very comfortable with the process and tend to forget small but crucial steps. On the other hand, guides must be written taking the average user into account, not the seasoned developer. Let’s not forget that the word “compiling” intimidates a lot of users, novice and seasoned alike and, as with many things in life, they seem utterly scary until you try. Once you know how to do them, they become an extremely easy and fun process. Most times, anyway.

That led to a conclusion: guides must not contain any ambiguity or room for interpretation. Plain spoon-fed copy and paste was the target. The result is a bunch of build guides for most common platforms and OSes Kodi runs on. Those include Android, FreeBSD, iOS, macOS, RaspberryPi, Windows and a general Linux guide. Popular Linux distributions among Kodi users, like Fedora, Ubuntu and openSUSE also have dedicated guides.

Starting with Kodi v18 Leia, our build guides are kept up-to-date against the current code base. Hopefully, up-to-date against a single pull request or code commit. This might seem of little importance but consider this: if, in two years time, you decide that you want to compile Kodi Leia for whatever reason, you won’t need to dig through the Wiki, forum guides, old HOW-TOs, etc, to achieve what should be a simple task. The correct build instructions are right there, alongside the code. Of course, there are things we can’t control and in two years a lot can change. Your shiny new OS or hardware might not be compatible with an older Kodi version. That’s not our fault, by the way. ;)

Producing nice build guides wasn’t the only thing we did. We also decided to overhaul Kodi’s GitHub face, making it a little nicer to look at and a bit more informative about the project. It now links to Kodi’s most important resources (downloads, site, forum, wiki, etc.), and has a section dedicated to those wanting to contribute to Kodi.

Since GitHub is a developer space, we couldn’t complete the task without providing a few guides for code contributors. This includes a contributing guide, code guidelines, and a simple git-fu reference guide for those not familiar with git.

The full list of new documents and guides can be seen here. We hope you like them and help us improve them and Kodi.





Source link


Last year several major record labels, represented by the RIAA, filed a lawsuit against ISP Grande Communications accusing it of turning a blind eye to pirating subscribers.

According to the labels, the Internet provider knew that some of its subscribers were frequently distributing copyrighted material, but failed to take any meaningful action in response.

Grande refuted the accusations and filed a motion to dismiss the case. The ISP partially succeeded as the claims against its management company Patriot were dropped. The same was true for the vicarious infringement allegations, as the court saw no evidence that the ISP had a direct financial interest in the infringing activity.

The labels disagreed, however, and were not ready to let any claims go. In May they submitted a motion for leave to file an amended complaint including new evidence obtained during discovery. Among other things, they argued that Grande willingly kept pirating subscribers abroad, to generate more revenue.

While both sides were going head to head in court, the labels also attempted a peace offering. Court documents submitted this week show that the record labels offered a settlement agreement to the ISP two months ago.

Per the court’s scheduling order, Grande was required to respond to the offer within a month, but thus far a response has yet to come in. In a new status report submitted his week, the labels say they are still open to a settlement.

“Plaintiffs remain ready and willing to participate in a meaningful attempt to resolve the case without further litigation, including through a mediation, which Plaintiffs previously proposed to Grande and Patriot Media Consulting, LLC,” the labels write.

“Otherwise, if Grande and Patriot have no interest in discussing settlement, Plaintiffs will continue vigorous prosecution of this case to recover damages for Grande’s and Patriot’s extensive and harmful infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings.”

The details of the settlement offer remain unknown, but it’s likely that they will come at a cost for the ISP. Grande’s attorney informed the labels that more time was needed to prepare a thorough response, something the company also told the court this week.

“Due to the nature of Plaintiffs’ written offer of settlement, Grande notified Plaintiffs that it would require additional time to prepare and transmit its official written response.” Grande’s attorney notes.

The ISP now expects to have its response to the settlement offer ready next week. Given that it took nearly two months to reply, this will likely be more complex than a simple yes or no.

The record labels’ letter is available here (pdf), and Grande’s response can be found 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


During March 2017, the Premier League obtained a blocking injunction from the High Court which compelled ISPs including BT, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin Media to block ‘pirate’ football streams in real-time.

Due to its reported success, the Premier League applied for a second order which was handed down in July 2017. It ran from August 12, 2017 to May 13, 2018 and contained a renewal clause. The Premier League was successful in its latest application, obtaining a new order from the High Court last week.

This extension applies to BT, EE, Plusnet, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin Media, with all of the ISPs required to work with the Premier League to stop pirate content from reaching their subscribers. While all will do so, it’s clear that some are a little keener than others.

Sky, BT, and Virgin are all football broadcasters in their own right, so have a vested interest in complying with the High Court order. How they go about that has never been revealed in public but a new report from ComputerWorldUK shows how much effort Sky are prepared to put in.

Speaking during Google Cloud Next in San Francisco this week, Mohamed Hammady, CTO at Sky UK revealed that his company spends close to $8 billion a year on content, with broadcasting rights of the Premier League ($1.6 billion) representing the “crown jewel” of its sports spending.

To protect that investment (while complying with the Premier League’s High Court order), Sky has turned to Google Cloud technology.

Hammady said that the team at Sky collected its NetFlow traffic information as a means of “sampling the traffic on our core network.” This sampling produced 500 billion data records in a year, a volume best handled by the professionals.

“Using BigQuery and an in-house algorithm – which cost $10,000 (£7,500) to develop – we are now able to continuously study traffic patterns with an always up to date list of suspect pirate sites,” Hammady said as quoted by CWUK. “Once they have been confirmed as illegal they are shut down.

Hammady said running a query on Google Cloud takes Sky less than 30 seconds and costs the company just 23 cents, a good deal according to the Sky CTO.

“The result is a phenomenal reduction in pirate sites in the UK,” he said.

While the High Court order was obtained by the Premier League and Sky was a defendant in that case, it’s clear that rather than opponents, these content companies are working hand-in-hand to reduce piracy.

Also, from the little we know, it seems that Sky is also happy to obtain data from the network traffic generated by its customers in order to target pirate sites.

It’s a somewhat unusual situation to hear discussed in public, given that most ISPs prefer to be seen as content agnostic “dumb pipes” that seek no control (or awareness) of what their customers might be doing online.

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


At the turn of the last decade, the Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA) ended legal action against local ISP Eircom when the provider agreed to implement a so-called “three strikes” regime.

The agreement saw member labels including Sony, Universal, and Warner tracking allegedly-infringing Eircom subscribers online and Eircom forwarding infringement notices. Those caught three times would be eligible for disconnection from the Internet.

Under an agreement to give Eircom a level playing field, the labels targeted another ISP, UPC (later taken over by Virgin), with a demand to implement the same scheme. UPC dug in its heels and the case dragged on through the legal system.

In 2015, the High Court ruled in favor of the labels, rejecting complaints from UPC that it’s not an ISP’s job to police its subscribers’ activities online.

Now, more than three years later, the labels are back again with a renewed effort to have the graduated response scheme introduced more widely in Ireland. This time around, Sony, Warner and Universal are targeting Sky Ireland.

According to the Irish Times, Sky has told the labels it will comply with their demands but has asked that they obtain a court order first.

Sky, which is already collaborating with the Premier League to block infringing streams, said that it was “actively working” with the industry to deal with online piracy.

“It’s therefore important that companies like ours do what they can, alongside the Government and the rest of the media and technology industries, to help protect copyright,” Sky said.

“Copyright holders who believe broadband users have unlawfully shared content online have the option of taking their cases to court. If the order is granted, the service provider must comply and Sky would, of course, comply with any such order.”

Asking for a court order to be produced is standard form in such cases but given Sky’s track record in such matters, it probably won’t be putting up much of a fight. The issue of costs is likely to be a matter for dispute but putting the regime in place is unlikely to be a sticking point.

In response, the labels (under the Irish Recorded Music Association umbrella) initiated a claim in the High Court this week, with supporting papers filed by IRMA chief Willie Kavanagh.

IT reports that IRMA is also in talks with Vodafone Ireland to implement the same anti-piracy scheme but the ISP has “raised technical concerns and sought more time.” In any event, Vodafone is extremely unlikely to begin disconnecting customers without a legal basis so a court order will be required in this case too.

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 month, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) asked the public for input for its International Internet Policy Priorities.

The NTIA has an important role in President Trump’s administration, acting as a principal adviser on telecommunications policies.

In recent weeks various stakeholders submitted their input. Yesterday, for example, we highlighted the MPAA’s submission which argued that action is required as the current “lawless” Internet chills free speech.

However, not everyone agrees with this stance. Mozilla, the creators of the Firefox browser, sees regulation and copyright legislation in particular, as one of the largest threats to an open Internet.

In its submission, Mozilla’s Senior Policy Manager Heather West asks the NTIA to help preserve the Internet’s openness.

“One of the key elements that makes the internet an incredible global resource is its openness. ‘Open’ means that anyone can publish or invent online without asking for permission, and that the technologies used to run the Web are transparent and understandable.”

More restrictions are a threat to the open Internet, Mozilla argues. It specifically highlights intellectual property laws, which include copyright, as one of the dangers.

These laws restrict people from using the full potential of the Internet. Instead of more restrictions, Mozilla promotes the idea of a more flexible approach, such as Creative Commons licenses.

“Intellectual property laws stifle creativity and innovation if they are too restrictive about sharing and remixing – particularly for educational and non-profit use, which would be permitted under ‘fair use’.”

“We need to reform laws that are outdated, and support the growth of licensing alternatives like the Creative Commons,” Mozilla adds.

Mozilla agrees with the MPAA that copyright legislation in the US and abroad hasn’t kept up with the pace with the Internet. However, both groups clearly have different ideas on how to move forward.

Where MPAA and other pro-copyright groups want stricter copyright regulation, Mozilla wants fewer restrictions, and both ask the Government for support.

“Internationally, the NTIA and Department of Commerce should support efforts to keep the internet open. Open innovation on the internet is threatened by bad policies, the devaluation of common standards, and the fragmentation of the global internet.”

As an example of present threats, Mozilla mentions the EU’s copyright modernization proposals, which would increase liability for online services and introduce a so-called ‘link tax’.

“It is clear that leadership is necessary; the EU is currently in the final stages of negotiation on a copyright proposal that would threaten the future of the internet,” Mozilla warns.

Mozilla notes that the challenges ‘we’ face are complicated, but that they can be tackled if all stakeholders collaborate to find the right solutions. However, if the NTIA submissions show anything, it’s that this will be nearly impossible.

On one side there are groups such as Mozilla, EFF, Public Knowledge, Center for Democracy & Technology, the Internet Association, Cloudflare, and Google, warning against the adverse effects of restrictive regulation.

On the other, there are copyright holder groups such as the MPAA, RIAA, The Software Alliance, the Copyright Alliance, and others, urging for better protection for creators.

Both argue that they want to protect freedom of expression and the free flow of information, but they differ greatly in how this goal should be achieved.

An overview of all NTIA responses is available here.

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


Late last week, the now-infamous cracker known as Voksi hit the headlines once again after defeating the latest variant of the Denuvo anti-tamper technology.

The 21-year-old Bulgarian has made it a personal mission to bring down the world’s most hated anti-piracy system and regularly sets to work when a protected game is released. Last week’s successful attack on Sonic Mania Plus was an important step but those who know Voksi best understand the guy rarely rests.

Soon after he cracked the Denuvo protection on Total War Saga: Thrones of Britannia, the latest updates of Tekken 7 and Injustice 2, and delivered a new crack for Prey and its latest DLC.

“There is no point of using Denuvo anymore,” he told us late last week.

This unprecedented level of activity has led some to joke that Voksi’s not a human but some kind of robot that’s around all the time and doesn’t need to sleep. However, throughout the course of yesterday concerns have been mounting that all is not well in Bulgaria.

Voksi was last seen online very early yesterday morning. He’s not been seen in any of his usual hangouts since and no one we’ve spoken to has heard or seen any news. While this isn’t alarming in itself, other developments seem more serious.

Voksi is the leader of cracking group REVOLT which has its home at the Revolt.group forum. Yesterday and seemingly coinciding with Voksi’s disappearance, the REVOLT forum disappeared without warning. Again, this isn’t extraordinary when taken on its own but real concern is building over what appears to have replaced it.

Instead of being greeted by the familiar forum, visitors to Revolt.group (RVT) are now being redirected to mvr.bg, the domain that identifies the website of Bulgaria’s Ministry of the Interior. Obviously, this link with the authorities is not what most people hope to see when they try to visit Voksi’s home.

Definitely not the Revolt forum

While domain redirects in the case of coordinated anti-piracy busts are fairly common, they are usually more informative than simply linking to the homepage of a government site. They tend to point to a specific message which can be both informative and a means to inform visitors that the game is up.

The way things stand, that doesn’t appear to be the case here. As far as we can see, the Ministry of the Interior site doesn’t carry any message or announcement that can be in anyway connected with some kind of raid or bust so it’s possible that something else is going on.

Previously, the Revolt.group domain pointed to an IP address in Sofia, Bulgaria. Now, however, it redirects to an IP address/server registered to SoftLayer in the United States which appears to be responsible for the redirect to the Ministry of the Interior. When taken together, none of this fits any expected patterns.

TorrentFreak has spoken with individuals concerned about Voksi’s whereabouts but all say (including some close to him) that they have no idea what has happened to him or the Revolt forum. Directly, we have two key ways of contacting the cracker and thus far, neither has been met with any success.

So, for now at least, it looks like a waiting game. We can confirm that Voksi is a real person so it’s possible he’s taken a break from his 24/7 cracking activities to recharge his batteries. Sadly, that doesn’t explain the issue with the forum. Other possibilities are also under consideration, including some kind of hack, hoax, or pending surprise reveal. Only time will tell.

Updates as we get them

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


Early June, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the agency that acts as the President’s principal adviser on telecommunications policies, requested comments for its Inquiry on International Internet Policy Priorities.

“Recognizing the vital importance of the Internet and digital communications to U.S. innovation, prosperity, education, and civic and cultural life, NTIA has made it a top priority to encourage growth and innovation for the Internet and Internet-enabled economy,” NTIA wrote.

“Towards that end, NTIA is seeking comments and recommendations from all interested stakeholders on its international Internet policy priorities for 2018 and beyond. These comments will help inform NTIA to identify priority issues and help NTIA effectively leverage its resources and expertise to address those issues.”

The MPAA has responded with a 38-page document detailing what it believes to be key issues facing the Internet and its users. It makes for interesting reading.

Increased cooperation from online platforms

The first issue, to which the movie group dedicates close to half of its response, centers on online platforms being shielded from responsibility for harms stemming from use of their services “even though most other businesses can be held culpable for such harms in similar circumstances.”

The MPAA doesn’t mention any particular platforms by name but it can be safely assumed that Google, YouTube, Facebook and similar services are in the crosshairs when it says that positive aspects of these sites are “increasingly clouded” by bad actors using them as “powerful tools for harmful and illicit ends.”

So what can be done? The MPAA says it’s not advocating for any particular solution but notes that it could be as simple as platforms agreeing to become more accountable while dealing with abuse on a voluntary basis.

Claiming that dominant online platforms are facilitating everything from intellectual property theft to malware propagation, cyberespionage, sales of drugs and trafficking of minors, the MPAA says that platforms themselves are best placed to get their own houses in order.

“The rationale is that the responsibility for harm prevention is more appropriately borne by the businesses than the customers who might be harmed, or that the businesses should at least take a prominent role in mitigating risk,” the MPAA notes.

“Often, businesses that serve as ‘platforms’ for illegal activity are better situated — and have more expertise and resources — to identify potential problems and take precautionary or remedial measures.

“They can more readily avoid what could be catastrophic consequences for the individuals, as well as help absorb what could also be catastrophic costs. And since the businesses are profiting from the public marketing of goods and services, there is an equity in expecting them to take on certain responsibilities and act with a requisite amount of care.”

Given past criticisms, the MPAA’s submission seems keen to dispel what it sees as the misconception that online enforcement is incompatible with free speech and the free flow of information.

Tackling the illegal activities detailed above is no more a violation of free expression online as it is in the physical world, the group notes, adding that platforms that refuse to deal with these problems are actually operating counter to these ideals.

“In fact, curbing such illicit activity promotes free expression by creating a safer, virtual forum where individuals feel comfortable to engage and communicate. In this sense, it is leaving lawlessness and bullying unchecked that is chilling free speech,” the MPAA adds.

Restrictions on domain name use for illegal sites, better WHOIS access

Most websites benefit from having a memorable domain name and pirate sites are no different. The MPAA believes that illegal sites shouldn’t have access to domain names and asks the NTIA to do whatever it can to prevent that from happening in future.

“[W]e hope the NTIA will help ensure ICANN, registries, and registrars are enforcing obligations that prohibit domain holders from using domain names in connection with illicit conduct. Doing so is critical to ensuring the multistakeholder model maintains the security, stability, and resiliency of the internet domain name system,” the MPAA writes.

The Hollywood group says that the contractual obligations for this to happen already exist, created through the multistakeholder process, in some cases as far back as 2001. Mechanisms are in place to prohibit domain name holders from using domains for unlawful activity, including via suspensions after a review process.

“Failing to enforce these provisions jeopardizes the credibility and accountability of ICANN and the multistakeholder governance model, and invites government intervention,” the MPAA warns.

Another thorn in the side of the MPAA is the current state of access to WHOIS data. The group urges the NTIA to advise Congress on legislation that will ensure the collection of accurate WHOIS data while providing access to such information in appropriate circumstances. The MPAA says that WHOIS data is a “cornerstone of online accountability”, one which assists with public safety, consumer protection, dispute resolution, and enforcement of rights.

Access to this data is currently under threat, not least due to the requirements of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The MPAA reports that its inquiries into 30 pirate site related domains in June yielded WHOIS data for just one, with all others denied, refused without a court order, or hindered by a domain privacy service.

“Except for the data behind privacy proxies, this information would ordinarily have been public, and even in privacy proxy cases, we sometimes had agreements in place to gain access to the underlying information to address piracy issues,” the MPAA says.

In conclusion, the Hollywood group is calling for a GDPR-compliant framework that allows access to WHOIS records for legitimate purposes such as intellectual property rights enforcement.

Criminal enforcement actions to deter the distribution of illicit streaming devices

The rise of illicit online streaming is showing few signs of slowing down so it’s no surprise that the MPAA is seeking assistance from the NTIA on this front. Specifically, the MPAA wants to see strong measures taken against those who promote and/or distribute so-called “fully loaded” set-top devices that are pre-configured for infringing purposes.

Given its track record of equating online piracy with other crime, it’s no surprise that the MPAA leads with the claim that pirate sites help to spread malware “into living rooms” due to the prevalence of streaming piracy devices.

“The issues relating to illegal streaming sites, devices, and applications — as well as the surrounding piracy ecosystem more generally — are thus closely linked to broader issues of cybersecurity. Combatting the former may well make significant contributions toward the latter,” the MPAA advises.

Highlighting the only major security event in recent memory (which was quickly fixed, incidentally), the MPAA makes much of an exploit that targeted how some media players handled subtitles. Last month the MPAA’s affiliates promised to detail more security issues but thus far has failed to deliver.

But aside from the somewhat transparent effort to paint pirate consumers as vulnerable victims, it’s clear that the main aim of the MPAA is to starve pirate operations of both cash and exposure by targeting everyone from sellers, payment processors and advertisers, to domain and hosting providers.

On top, it also wants some heavy-duty action by the authorities. The suggested targets are likely to send a shiver down the spines of many involved in the third-party Kodi addon community.

“Combatting the growth of streaming piracy requires coordination among all parties in a position to make a difference, including civil and criminal actions against creators of pirate add-on software and the repository websites that host them, against distributors of the preloaded devices, and against the entities streaming the content.”

As part of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, the MPAA is already undertaking civil action against various pirate box vendors. However, what it really wants is for the government to bring deterrent criminal prosecutions in order to shock some offenders away from the market.

Citing the shutdown of Megaupload and a reported 6.5 to 8.5 percent increase in digital sales for three major studios in its wake, the MPAA says that similar results could be achieved if the government took a more active role against players in the streaming market.

“We would welcome the NTIA’s voice in urging its sister agencies to bring criminal actions, as well as its consulting with the Customs and Border Patrol about the possibility of interdiction of illicit streaming devices entering the country from abroad,” the MPAA concludes.

The MPAA’s submission to the NTIA can be found 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


With YouTube now a major force when it comes to online music distribution, recording labels and artists are striving for a better deal.

While YouTube compensates labels for views of authorized content, the labels say the existence of unlicensed content uploaded by users means that the Google-owned video giant gains an unfair negotiating position.

In an effort to tighten the noose on YouTube and owners Google, the music industry lobbied hard for new EU legislation (Article 13) that would see user-uploaded content platforms compelled to install filters to detect infringing content before it gets made available to the public.

Earlier this month and after much heated debate, the wind was taken out of the music industry’s sails when the European Parliament said “no” to the Copyright Directive mandate.

The debate leading up to the vote was messy, with extremist claims on both sides doing little for the quality of the discussion, particularly on social media. As the vote neared, however, claims that somehow the campaign wasn’t being fought fairly came to the fore.

Two days before the vote, UK Music CEO Michael Dugher launched a scathing attack, describing Google as a “corporate vulture feeding off the creators and investors” while claiming the search giant had pumped €31 million into lobbying against the legislation.

“These new figures expose the fact that Google is acting like a monolithic mega-corp trying to submerge the truth under a tsunami of misinformation and scare stories pedaled by its multi-million propaganda machine,” Dugher said.

“Instead of mounting a cynical campaign, motivated entirely out of its self-interested desire to protect its huge profits, Google should be making a positive contribution to those who create and invest in the music. MEPs should ignore the big money lobbying from big tech and back fair rewards for creators.”

Whether Google’s lobbying efforts amounted to unfair practice will be for history to decide but if music industry veteran Chris Castle has his way, no stone should be left unturned in establishing the facts.

Castle is probably best known online for editing the MusicTechPolicy blog but he’s also the founder of his own law firm and has held lofty positions at Sony and A&M. This busy industry man has little time for Google and its practices.

“[T]here have been incredible and probably illegal uses of the Internet to overwhelm elected officials with faux communications that reek of Google-style misinformation and central planning in the hive mind of the Googleplex,” he writes.

“We saw this again with the Article 13 vote in Europe last week with what clearly seems to be a Google-backed attack on the European Parliament for the purpose of policy intimidation.

“That’s right – an American-based multinational corporation is trying to intimidate the very same European government that is currently investigating them for anticompetitive behavior and is staring down a multi-billion dollar fine. Vindictive much?”

Last week the EU Commission did indeed fine Google €4.34 billion regarding the use of Android mobile devices to strengthen dominance of its search engine (a matter it reportedly tried to settle), but what about this attack on the EU Parliament?

Castle doesn’t go into much detail on the precise mechanics of what Google is supposed to have done but he describes the company as engineering “DDOS-type stunts capitalizing on what seems to be the element of surprise.”

This appears to be a reference to the numerous automated web-based forms that were made available online by various organizations, which enabled the public to make their voices heard by the decision makers about to tackle Article 13.

The forms were used, apparently a lot, to send messages to MEPs but whether this was simply a passionate and genuine response or more cynical organized chaos will be a matter for the parties to argue over.

In the meantime, Castle strongly feels there is a case to answer. The lawyer believes that Google is using its dominant position online to gain an unfair advantage in what should be a democratic process.

“[T]he most important thing for the European Commission to take into account is that a company that is the target of multiple investigations is using the very market place monopoly that caused the competition investigations to intimidate the European government into bending to its will on Article 13,” he writes.

“The European Commission needs to launch a full-blown criminal investigation into exactly what happened on Article 13, particularly since there is another vote on the same subject coming in September. Properly authorized law enforcement acting swiftly can set sufficient digital snares to track the next attack which surely is coming while they forensically try to figure out what happened.”

It remains to be seen whether these strong words from Chris Castle and those who share his sentiments will have any effect on the ground but the fact that these accusations are now being made openly is likely to throw more fuel on an already super-heated debate.

Finally, it’s perhaps worth noting that the companies and groups in the image below, which together claim to “represent 4.5% of EU GDP and 12 million European jobs” (and were in favor of Article 13), were apparently outgunned by Google.

Or, perhaps they were simply outgunned by people who just didn’t like the idea of Article 13? Only a couple of months left for round two – it could be a bumpy ride.

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


Playing games through browser-based emulators is a niche pastime of some of the most dedicated gamers.

For Game Boy Advance fans there are a few websites that offer this option, albeit without permission.

Nintendo is not pleased with these unsanctioned projects which they see as clear copyright infringement. A few days ago, the company took action against a popular JavaScript-based Game Boy Advance emulator that was hosted on the developer platform GitHub.

“The files located at the repository link https://jsemu3.github.io/gba/ contain unauthorized copies of Nintendo’s video game software in violation of the law and GitHub’s Terms of Service,” Nintendo writes.

The repository in question offered JavaScript-powered versions of many popular titles including Advance Wars, Dragon Ball Z, Super Mario Advance, Pokémon Mystery Dungeon, and Legend of Zelda.

The DMCA notice was filed late last week and GitHub removed the allegedly infringing files soon after.

Repository offline

The request came around the same time as the lawsuit that was filed against the LoveROMS and LoveRETRO emulator sites. While we can’t see an apparent connection between the two cases, Nintendo says that it is also considering legal action against the owner of the infringing GitHub repository.

“We are considering action regarding those matters but are not including them in this notice,” Nintendo writes.

Interestingly, this isn’t the first time that Nintendo has gone after an infringing Game Boy emulator. A few years ago the company targeted a similar repository, with a similar name. And it may have more work on its hands, as there are several similar emulators still hosted on GitHub.

One thing is quite clear though. Sites that offer emulators and ROMs are not welcomed by Nintendo, even those that don’t have a clear profit motive.

As for the two sites that were sued last week. LoveRETRO took its site down “until further notice” over the weekend, while its partner site LoveROMS removed all Nintendo titles.

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