Pirates Punish Denuvo-Protected Games With Poor Ratings


The Denuvo anti-piracy system has been a sworn enemy of many gaming pirates for years.

Early on, the anti-tampering system appeared to be unbreakable. While it’s getting cracked more easily nowadays, it’s still seen as a major roadblock.

Denuvo leaves the average game pirate powerless. While they wait for crackers to find a patch, there’s little they can do, aside from bickering and complaining perhaps, which is quite common and not without consequence.

According to new research published by Dr. Zike Cao of the Erasmus University’s Rotterdam School of Management, game pirates are retaliating against Denuvo-protected games by posting fake negative ratings.

In a paper titled “Revenge after ‘Freebies’ Are Gone? Effects of Curbing Piracy on Online User Ratings” Cao researched the effect of Denuvo protection on user comments posted on the review site Metacritic. The results suggest that Denuvo protection leads to significantly lower ratings across the board.

The researcher compared reviews of protected PC games with non-Denuvo protected console versions of the same games, showing that the former get a significantly lower rating on average.

After ruling out several alternative explanations, including the suggestion that Denuvo hurts gameplay, he sees only one explanation for this finding.

“In summary, the results from multiple identification tests consistently point to one conclusion: The decreases in mean PC user ratings of Denuvo games are likely due to deliberate posting of extremely negative ratings from illegal gamers out of retaliation for being deprived of the opportunity to play free cracked games.”

“Moreover, those retaliating illegal gamers are more likely to write textual comments along with the extremely negative ratings, but they seem to write significantly shorter than genuine reviewers do,” Cao adds.

Denuvo vs non-Denuvo

The decrease in ratings is quite substantial. The estimates suggest that a Denuvo-protected game suffers, on average, a decrease of 0.5 to 0.9 points on a ten point scale. This difference is mostly driven by extremely negative reviews, where ‘users’ rate games with a 0 or 1.

This negative effect remains and is even more pronounced when reviews from professional critics (Metascores) are exactly the same for Denuvo-protected (PC) and unprotected (console) versions.

“Interestingly, the estimate using the 100 titles with identical Metascores across platforms indicates the effect of Denuvo adoption is notably larger,” Cao writes.

The paper suggests, following a battery of additional tests, that these ratings are purely driven by revenge. In other words, pirates who are frustrated by the fact that they can’t play the game for free because there’s no working crack available.

Dr. Cao notes that this is the first empirical evidence which reveals this revenge strategy. Going forward, this may be something both developers and review sites may want to pay close attention to.

“The findings thus offer digital-good providers a caveat to adopt advanced anti-piracy technologies to crack down on piracy in a hard way,” Cao writes.

“More importantly, the study documents, to my knowledge, the first piece of empirical evidence that online user-generated content can be significantly distorted by user sabotage out of revenge.”

—

The full copy of Dr. CAO’s paper 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

/0 Comments/by

Man Jailed For Five Years+ For Selling Streaming Piracy Devices


Streaming pirate content directly to living rooms around the world has become huge business over the past few years, with many hundreds of operations selling various services to the public.

While the majority appears to do so with impunity, a growing number of UK providers are finding that their businesses attract the attention of rightsholders who are keen to send a message that they won’t be tolerated.

The latest case involves John Haggerty and wife Mary Josephine Gilfillan, who together ran Evolution Trading Company Limited, a business venture registered at their former home address.

Incorporated in December 2013 for the stated purpose of “wholesale of coffee, tea, cocoa and spices”, Evolution was used in connection with Haggerty’s business of selling Kodi-based set-top boxes, some of which were loaded with an illicit IPTV service.

“Stop paying for sky high satellite or cable bills. Never buy or rent another DVD again! With Stream Box you can view any movie from the very latest blockbuster to your all time favorites,” some of Haggerty’s original marketing reads.

“Watch any box set or TV Series ever made or ever will be made! Watch tons of sports and hundreds of other TV channels from all over the world ALL FOR FREE.

“We consider Stream Box the future of TV viewing, with Stream box connected to your broadband Internet and your HD TV you can stream any film or TV show ever shown – all totally free.”

Following an investigation by the Federation Against Copyright Theft, searches were carried out at various premises connected with Haggerty. Like many of these kinds of cases, it’s taken a very long time to come to court, but now it has, it’s ended badly for the pair.

According to prosecutors, the business ran from March 2013 to July 2015, during which time at least £764,000 was generated from the sale of set-top boxes, carried out from a shop and online marketplaces such as eBay and Amazon.

The court heard the devices would be sold for between £75 and £100 to the public and £400 to pubs, although searches reveal them changing hands for as little as £52. The IPTV service provided with some of the boxes, Infusum.tv, was created by Haggerty and sold for £15 per month. The marketing image below shows that football fans were a major target.

According to prosecutors, the operation meant that broadcasters including Sky and BT Sport faced potential losses of £4m per year while using the devices in pubs exposed licensees to the risk of prosecution.

Chronicle Live reports that Haggerty had several passports in different names, and set up a company in Nevis to hide the true purpose of his business. Along with his wife, he also supplied the UK Immigration Service with false documents to sponsor an Egyptian national who was put in charge of the streaming service.

All things considered, 57-year-old Haggerty was jailed for five years and three months for conspiracy to defraud. His wife, 54, who the court accepted had played a minor role, was handed a two-year sentence suspended for two years and ordered to complete 200 hours of unpaid work.

“This was a very sophisticated fraud perpetrated primarily by you, John Haggerty,” said Judge Simon Batiste.

“You sold 8,000 set top boxes and started services including streaming services, you created an application to enable other devices to access the stream you created. In particular devices permitted users to view all Premier League matches and films, some of which hadn’t even been released in the cinema.”

The sentencing of the pair was welcomed by Premier League director of legal services, Kevin Plumb.

“This case demonstrates how seriously the courts are dealing with criminals involved in the supply of illicit streaming devices and services that provide illegal access to Premier League football and other popular content,” Plumb 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

/0 Comments/by

Court Sanctions TVAddons Owner For Failing to Disclose Evidence


Last year, American satellite and broadcast provider Dish Network targeted two well-known players in the third-party Kodi add-on ecosystem.

In a complaint filed in a federal court in Texas, add-on ZemTV and the TVAddons library were accused of copyright infringement. As a result, both are facing up to $150,000 in damages for each offense.

While ZemTV’s developer has chosen not to put up a fight, TVAddons’ Adam Lackman has retained counsel and will defend himself in court. Both parties are currently in the discovery phase, gathering evidence, but this hasn’t been a smooth process.

A few days ago Dish informed the Court that Lackman had failed to provide crucial evidence. Among other things, TVAddons’ owner hasn’t shared a detailed accounting of the revenue and profits he made through TVAddons.ag and Offshoregit.com.

After the lawyers on both sides couldn’t come to an agreement, Dish asked the Court for an order compelling TVAddons’ owner to disclose this information.

Texas District Court Judge Vanessa Gilmore agrees that the financial information should be handed over. In an order signed last Friday, she compels Lackman to disclose the requested financial information, including the banks and cryptocurrency exchanges he used.

“Within five days of this Order, Adam Lackman must produce: All documents identifying his revenues, costs, and gross profits relating to Tvaddons.ag or Offshoregit.com from February 17, 2015 through June 4, 2017,” the order reads.

TVAddons order

Lackman previously refused to hand over information related to donations, as these can’t be directly linked to any alleged copyright infringements. These and other disputes were summarized in an email that was submitted as evidence last week.

This document already lists the names of several bank accounts as well as Lackman’s taxable income, ranging from $10,534 to over $133,000 over the past three years, but Dish requests more detailed information on several issues.

In addition, the Court ordered TVAddons’ owner to share all documents he has on ZemTV and several other allegedly infringing addons. These include ARY Digital, B4U Movies, B4U Music, Dunya TV, Express Entertainment, Geo TV, Hum TV, Movies OK, Times Now, and Zoom.

For failing to provide the requested evidence in a timely manner Lackman is sanctioned. Within five days, he must pay Dish $2,835.00 to cover the legal expenses that arose from the discovery dispute.

Making matters worse for the defense team, Judge Gilmore also reprimands TVAddons’ attorney for disrupting Court proceedings during a telephone conference, stating that he prematurely hung up the phone.

This was revealed in a separate order, which was issued following the conference on Friday.

“After the Court inquired why Lackman had failed to provide the discoverable documents, defense counsel for Lackman, Jason E. Sweet, falsely stated to the Court: ‘If you are going to yell at me, this conversation is over. I don’t care if you are a judge,’ and hung up the phone prior to the conclusion of the teleconference,” the order reads.

According to Judge Gilmore, these comments were aimed “to lessen the authority and dignity of the Court.” During a scheduled hearing in September, the attorney has the opportunity to explain why he shouldn’t be held in direct contempt of court.

—

The order compelling TVAddons’ Adam Lackman to product evidence 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

/0 Comments/by

‘Copyright’s True Purpose Is Dead, It Never Existed’


We’re all familiar with the statement that piracy is “killing” the music industry.

It’s one of the main arguments used to argue in favor of stronger copyright enforcement and legislation.

The underlying idea is that strong copyright protection ensures that artists get paid. More money then opens the door to more artistic creations. But is that really the case?

Glynn Lunney Jr, law professor at Texas A&M University, has his doubts.

When the first wave of widespread online piracy hit in the late nineties, copyright holders called for stronger protections. This eventually resulted in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, commonly known under the acronym DMCA, which was passed nearly twenty years ago.

At the time, Professor Lunney declared that this would be the death of copyright. The DMCA would mainly serve the interests of large monopolies, not the independent creators, he envisioned. This would kill the true purpose of copyright, which is the progress of arts and science, as defined by the constitution.

In a new follow-up essay, Lunney looks back at his earlier predictions, with fresh evidence. As is turns out, he was wrong. The DMCA did little to stop the piracy epidemic. But while music industry revenues tanked, there was still plenty of creative output.

The professor doesn’t retract his early criticism of the DMCA, but he now sees that copyright never really served to promote the public interest.

In an ideal world, more money should lead to more creative output, but according to data presented Lunney’s new essay, the reality is quite different. Instead, it suggests that more money leads to less creative output.

Relying on music sales data dating back to the fifties, adjusted for inflation, and comparing that to a database of most-streamed tracks on Spotify in 2014, the professor reveals an interesting trend. There is no greater preference for music created in the high revenue periods, on the contrary in fact.

This is backed up by other data presented in Lunney’s book Copyright’s Excess, which also fails to find evidence that more money means better music.

“There is no evidence that more money meant more or better music. To the contrary, when I found a statistically significant correlation, I found that more money meant fewer and lower quality hit songs,” the professor writes.

The question is, of course, why?

According to the professor, it’s simple. Overpaid artists don’t work harder; they work less.

“These misdirected and excess incentives ensure that our most popular artists are vastly overpaid. By providing these excess incentives, copyright encourages our superstar artists to work less,” Lunney writes.

This suggests that more money for the music industry means less music. Which is the opposite of the true purpose of copyright; to facilitate the progress of arts and science.

It’s a controversial thought that relies on quite a few assumptions. For example, looking beyond the big stars, more money can also mean that more artists get paid properly, so they can make a decent living and dedicate more time to their music.

Also, even in the lower revenue periods, when music piracy is at its height, the top artists still make millions.

The professor, however, is convinced by the data he sees. Adding to the above, he shows that during high revenue periods the top artists made fewer albums, while they produced more albums and hits during tough times.

“As a result, when revenues were high for the recording industry, as they were in the 1990s, our top artists produced fewer studio albums and fewer Hot 100 hits in the first ten years of their career,” Lunney writes.

“In contrast, when revenues were low, both in the 1960s before the sound recording copyright and in the post-file sharing 2000s, our top artists produced more studio albums and more Hot 100 hits.”

Among other things, the data show that the most prolific artists in the study, the Beatles and Taylor Swift, had their first Hot 100 hits in 1964 and 2006, respectively. Both were low revenue years.

It’s a thought-provoking essay which undoubtedly will be countered by music industry insiders. That said, it does highlight that there’s not always a positive linear link between music industry revenue and creative output.

“For the United States recording industry over the last fifty years, more money has not meant more and better music. It has meant less. The notion that copyright can serve the public interest by increasing revenue for copyright owners has, at least for the recording industry, proven false,” Lunney notes.

“Copyright is dead. The DMCA did not, however, kill it. Copyright, in the sense of a law intended to promote the public interest, never existed at all. It was only ever a dream,” he adds.

And the DMCA?

Ironically, major copyright groups are increasingly complaining that the ‘outdated’ law is not fit to tackle the ongoing piracy problem. Instead, they see the DMCA’s safe harbor as a major roadblock which allows services such as YouTube to “profit from piracy.”

The same YouTube, however, is used by tens of thousands of artists to create content and get their work out to the public. It’s proven to be a breeding ground for creative talent, some of which have grown out to become today’s biggest stars. Even those who started as ‘pirates’…

Copyright, as we know it today, is not dead, but it sure is complicated.

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

/0 Comments/by

Rightscorp Prompted The RIAA to Sue Internet Provider


Two years ago, several major record labels filed a lawsuit against Internet provider Grande Communications.

The labels argued that the ISP’s subscribers engaged in more than a million BitTorrent-based infringements, yet it took “no meaningful action to discourage this continuing theft.”

While the RIAA is not a party to the case, on paper at least, the music group’s lawyers are closely involved in the matter. From the earliest stage, it provided the labels with legal assistance.

That said, filing a lawsuit against the Internet provider was not the RIAA’s idea originally. It was brought to their attention by none other than the piracy-settlement outfit Rightscorp.

In fact, the RIAA wasn’t even aware of any of the copyright infringement allegations before Rightscorp alerted the group.

This was revealed by the RIAA itself in a recent court filing, where the music group objects to handing over information regarding certain communications it had with Rightscorp.

“RIAA first learned of Defendants’ misconduct when Rightscorp approached RIAA in January 2016 regarding potential litigation arising from evidence of copyright infringement by Grande’s subscribers,” the RIAA writes.

“RIAA, on Plaintiffs’ behalf, retained Rightscorp as a litigation consultant with respect to Grande’s subscribers’ online infringement of Plaintiffs’ works, and that engagement resulted in the filing of this lawsuit.”

Rightscorp’s consulting in anticipation of the lawsuit wasn’t cheap. We previously revealed that the RIAA paid over $300,000 to the company in 2016, which represented approximately 44% of its total revenue for that year.

At the time it wasn’t clear what this money was for. However, the RIAA’s new filing shows that Rightcorp helped the music group and its members to carve out their legal strategy.

“RIAA’s considerations that led to the engagement of Rightscorp and the filing of this lawsuit were legal strategy; and RIAA’s communications with Plaintiffs and Rightscorp involved counsel and were for the purpose of rendering legal advice about, and in anticipation of, potential litigation against Defendants.”

These details are made public now because the ISP has also taken an interest in the collaboration. As part of the ongoing discovery process in the case, Grande has requested testimony on the communications between Rightscorp, the RIAA, and the labels.

The RIAA, however, believes that these and other requests go too far.

For one, the music group argues that its communications with Rightscorp are protected under the “common interest privilege,” which can cover communications between parties with a common legal interest.

In addition, it argues that the communications among the RIAA, the labels, and Rightscorp are protected work. This can prohibit the discovery of material prepared, by or for an attorney, in preparation of litigation.

The RIAA also objects to several other testimony requests, including information regarding its business with anti-piracy outfit MarkMonitor, and the technical functionality of Rightscorp’s online infringement detection system.

It’s now up to the court to decide how much information the RIAA must disclose. However, we already know a bit more about how the lawsuit got started, which makes it clear that Rightscorp, which also provides crucial evidence for the lawsuit, was not just a bystander.

—

A copy of RIAA’s motion for a protective order 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

/0 Comments/by

Anti-Piracy Portal Blocked Due to Alleged Phishing & Malware


After years of negotiations, last year UK ISPs began sending out piracy warnings to subscribers whose accounts are used to share copyright-infringing material.

The warning notices, sent out by ISPs including BT, TalkTalk, Virgin Media and Sky, politely inform account holders that their connections have been monitored sharing movies, music, TV shows and other content.

The notices are purely educational and no further threats are attached, a welcome approach to what can often be a difficult situation for both entertainment groups and the public.

This week, however, a reader sent us a warning he’d received from Virgin Media (redacted and truncated version below) which ended up piquing our interest.

The notice itself is pretty standard and advises the recipient to visit the Get it Right From a Genuine Site educational portal for more information. The recipient tried to do just that, following the hyperlink in the email. Unfortunately, things didn’t go to plan.

As seen from the image below, AVG immediately threw up a warning, advising the user to stay away from the site due to suspected malware.

Using a machine protected with Avast anti-virus, TorrentFreak followed the same procedure by clicking the hyperlink in the anti-piracy notice email and attempting to reach the GetitRight campaign site. We had broadly the same level of success.

Strangely, none of this came as a surprise to us because this isn’t the first time that there’s been a malware warning on the Get it Right domain.

Back in April, TorrentFreak discovered that the Get it Right site was being flagged as dangerous by several anti-piracy vendors. However, rather than expose people to a potentially dangerous situation (or cause unnecessary alarm), we took the decision to report the problems to an organization connected to Creative Content UK, the campaign behind the Get it Right site.

At the time we were told it was probably just a technical glitch and we were told it was being looked at. But now, several months later, things don’t seem to be any better and with letter recipients now experiencing the same problems, the issue is now known to the public.

The image below is from VirusTotal, which presents results from many anti-virus vendors. While most results are clear, it displays several serious warnings at the top of the list in addition to the issues we know exist with both AVG and Avast.

Precisely what the problem is here we don’t know. Visiting both http and https variants of the site produce malware warnings and there are even problems when trying to access the domain from third-party services.

For example, on the left-hand side of the Get it Right campaign’s Twitter account, one can find the usual information, including a summary of what the project is all about, where it’s located, and details of its website.

However, when clicking the link to access the campaign’s URL, Twitter steps in and prevents visitors from going any further.

Twitter’s warnings, that the site could “steal your password or other personal information” or install “malicious software programs on your computer”, hardly inspires confidence in those seeking advice about how not to pirate in the future. Somewhat ironically, it’s the kind of warning pirates are often told to expect on pirate sites.

As noted earlier, TF previously reported a security problem with the site several months ago but since such a long time has passed with no apparent action, mentioning it more openly will hopefully spring the campaign’s security people into clearing up the confusion.

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

/0 Comments/by

Mom’s Defense of “Cheating” Fortnite Kid Fails


Last year Epic Games decided to take several Fortnite cheaters to court, accusing them of copyright infringement.

Several of these lawsuits have been settled but there is one that proved to be somewhat of a challenge.

One of the alleged cheaters turned out to be a minor, who’s now referred to by his initials C.R. in the Carolina District Court. The game publisher wasn’t aware of this when it filed the lawsuit, but the kid’s mother let the company know, loud and clear.

“This company is in the process of attempting to sue a 14-year-old child,” the mother informed the Court last fall.

Among other defenses, the mother highlighted that the EULA, which the game publisher relies heavily upon in the complaint, isn’t legally binding. The EULA states that minors require permission from a parent or legal guardian, which was not the case here.

“Please note parental consent was not issued to [my son] to play this free game produced by Epic Games, INC,” the mother wrote in her letter.

After this letter, things went quiet. Epic managed to locate and serve the defendant with help from a private investigator, but no official response to the complaint was filed. This eventually prompted Epic to request an entry of default.

However, the court wouldn’t allow Epic to win this battle without a fight. Instead, it ruled that the mother’s letter should be seen as a motion to dismiss the case, to see if there were grounds to rule in her son’s favor.

This compelled Epic Games to respond to the mother’s letter in court. According to the game developer, most of the mother’s arguments failed to state a claim and were therefore irrelevant.

The only remaining issue was the lack of parental consent when C.R. agreed to the EULA and the Terms. However, in its response Epic Games pointed to jurisprudence, arguing that minors can’t void contractual obligations while keeping the benefits of the same contract.

This week US District Court Judge Malcolm Howard ruled on whether the case should be dismissed or not.

According to the rules, a court has to view a motion to dismiss in the light most favorable to the accuser, which is Epic Games. After a careful review of the mother’s letter, Judge Howard concludes that it’s not enough to drop the lawsuit.

“As detailed in plaintiff’s response memorandum, defendant has not shown that the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face,”

“[T]herefore, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, plaintiff has stated a plausible claim, and the motion to dismiss must be denied.”

The accused cheater now has two weeks to file a formal response to the complaint. If that doesn’t happen, Epic Games is likely to ask for a default judgment.

Based on previous cases, the game publisher is not likely to demand a high damages claim. Instead, its main goal appears to be to stop the cheaters’ infringing activities, and prevent others from doing the same.

—

A copy of US District Court Judge Malcolm Howard order on the motion to dismiss 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

/0 Comments/by

Russia Adopts Draft to Prohibit ‘Piracy-Enabling’ Software


At the turn of the century, most online piracy was carried out using software applications. With their inbuilt search features, tools such as KaZaA and eDonkey were all the rage.

With the advent of BitTorrent, however, a dual approach was required. While the file transfers themselves still took place in torrent clients, the .torrent files (which contain instructions on where to obtain content) had to be downloaded from indexing sites such as The Pirate Bay.

These days that same system is still used by millions but pure web-based streaming platforms are also extremely popular. Alongside, there’s also a huge selection of software applications, many of them designed for mobile devices, that either utilize existing web resources or have their own infrastructure to supply content.

Thus far, tackling these tools hasn’t proven easy. Kodi-based tools, Popcorn Time, Terrarium TV, Showbox and many other platforms are still going great guns, despite several efforts to bring them down. Over in Russia, however, the authorities believe that new legislation will bring about the desired result.

This week the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament, adopted in the first reading a draft law that will give authorities power to prohibit access to software applications through which pirated content is being distributed.

The draft is an amendment to anti-piracy legislation which currently refers to potentially infringing sites as “information resources”. The draft introduces the term “software application” which could refer to desktop software but is mainly directed at apps running on mobile devices including phones, tablets or set-top box variants.

The current draft envisions rightsholders filing complaints with telecoms watchdog Roscomnadzor when copyright-infringing content is being made available through a particular piece of software. It’s then for Roscomnadzor to identify the owner of the software application and instruct him to remove the content in question. If that fails to take place, local ISPs will be ordered to render the software inaccessible.

While blocking regular websites isn’t particularly difficult, software applications present a much more challenging scenario, not least since they can be downloaded from thousands of websites and can change hands in seconds. They also tend to rely on several underlying systems, each with their own ranges of IP addresses that may, or may not, be exclusively used for illegal purposes.

All this means that the government is gearing up for what is likely to be a complex battle to block pirate applications. Only adding to the problems is the existence of applications that can be used to share copyrighted content but aren’t necessarily designed for that purpose. How these will be tackled will remain to be seen.

Ultimately the authorities understand how difficult and resource intensive this will be. Already there are calls for existing budgets to be boosted to accommodate the plans but currently, the draft contains no such guarantees.

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

/0 Comments/by

YouTube Launches “Copyright Match” Tool to Protect Initial Uploaders


Millions of YouTube channel operators use the platform to distribute their own creations, from their latest musical compositions, to tutorials, reviews, or news segments.

While most remain unique, many of the most popular creators are plagued by people who rip their content from the site before re-uploading it to their own YouTube channel. It’s a quick way of grabbing thousands of views with minimal effort while denying creators clicks that would otherwise generate them revenue.

With the vast majority of YouTube content available free to all, there are few excuses for this kind of behavior and for many of the larger channels, it’s become a real thorn in the side. Now, however, YouTube says it’s releasing its new ‘Copyright Match’ tool to mitigate the problem.

“We know how frustrating it is when your content is uploaded to other channels without your permission and how time consuming it can be to manually search for these re-uploads,” says Fabio Magagna, Product Manager for the Copyright Match tool.

“We currently provide a number of ways for copyright owners to protect their work, but we’ve heard from creators that we should do more and we agree.”

Copyright Match, which uses similar technology to YouTube’s Content ID system, is designed to detect re-uploads of content to other channels. Once a user uploads a video, YouTube will scan subsequent uploads to see if they are the same or “very similar” to the original.

If a match is found, the original uploader will receive a notification in his or her YouTube panel which will give them several options.

The first option for a user with a ‘match’ notification is to do nothing, something that may come in handy for someone who simply wants to spread a message as far and wide as possible.

The second possibility is to get in touch with the secondary uploader. This could lead to a productive discussion (such as a gentle request to remove the video, perhaps) or, quite possibly, something a little more aggressive.

Finally, users can simply ask that YouTube takes the video down, an option that comes with options of its own.

“When you request removal you can do so with or without a 7-day delay to allow the uploader to correct the issue themselves. Takedown requests will be reviewed to make sure they comply with YouTube’s copyright policies,” Magagna explains.

While YouTube will carry out its own checks, the company advises users to review each incidence of ‘Copyright Match‘ to ensure that they do indeed own the rights to the matched content and that the copy infringes on their rights.

It’s important to note that in some cases, a match might not necessarily mean that an infringement has taken place.

“You should not file a copyright takedown request for content that you do not own exclusively, such as public domain content. You should also consider whether the matched content could be considered fair use or could be subject to some other exceptions to copyright and hence not require permission for reuse,” YouTube notes.

Magagna, who is also heavily involved with YouTube’s Content ID system, says that the Copyright Match tool will begin rolling out in the coming days to protect channels with substantial numbers of subscribers. Longer term, however, it should become available to all.

“Next week, we’ll start rolling this tool out to creators with more than 100k subscribers. As this is a powerful feature, we will monitor usage closely and will continue to expand over the coming months with the long-term goal of making it available to every creator in the YouTube Partner program,” Magagna concludes.

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

/0 Comments/by

Usenet Users Have Privacy Rights, But Pirates Can’t be Anonymous


Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN has targeted pirates of all shapes and sizes over the past several years.

It’s also one of the few groups to systematically track copyright infringers on Usenet, which still has millions of frequent users.

BREIN sets its aim on prolific uploaders and other large-scale copyright infringers. After identifying its targets, it asks providers to reveal the personal details connected to the account.

Not all providers are eager to hand over this information.

This is also true for Newsconnection. The Usenet provider was previously ordered by a Dutch court to hand over the IP-addresses, payment information, name and email addresses of three of its users. However, the company appealed the verdict.

Newsconnection argued that, among other things, it doesn’t have direct access to the users’ IP-addresses because it’s merely a reseller The company added that the relevant jurisprudence in this area doesn’t apply in this case, since the company operates as an intermediary.

In a verdict issued this week, the Court of Appeal rejected these arguments. The Court stressed that it’s not impossible for the Usenet provider to get access to the information BREIN demands.

For example, Newsconnection can request IP-addresses of suspected pirates from its hosting provider. If a hosting provider refuses to hand over this information, then the Usenet provider can find another hosting partner that’s more cooperative.

Furthermore, the Court also states that, even though it’s a reseller, the Usenet provider must hand over the personal details it has on file for the alleged pirates BREIN identifies. This includes the user’s name and email address.

There is also some good news for Newsconnection and its users. BREIN requested the Usenet provider to organize its administration in such a way that it can identify users more easily while keeping more detailed personal information. The Court of Appeal argued that this goes too far as it might potentially violate the privacy of innocent customers.

The Court made it clear that Usenet users have a right to privacy. However, those who are suspected of copyright infringement can’t be anonymous. Tweakers highlights that the court specifically notes that BREIN’s rights to protect creators prevail over the anonymity of Usenet users.

During the appeal, BREIN suggested several steps Newsconnection should take to verify the accuracy of user data. The Court argued that it’s not up to BREIN to decide what steps the provider should take, but agreed that Newsconnection must take measures to ensure that the personal information provided by its users is verified.

“The intermediary must take measures to verify customer identity. BREIN cannot dictate what such measures are, the intermediary must decide that itself,” BREIN director Tim Kuik informs TorrentFreak.

“Also, the intermediary cannot hide behind dependency on a third party that is unwilling to cooperate. They must secure cooperation contractually or find another business partner,” Kuik adds.

TorrentFreak reached out to Newsconnection for a comment on the ruling but at the time of publication, we have yet to hear back.

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

/0 Comments/by