While Kodi is a neutral media player, the name often shows up in piracy related headlines.

This is the result of dozens of unofficial addons, which can turn the software into a piracy tool, something the Kodi team can do little about.

In fact, the media player developers prefer to see their software used for legitimate purposes. While that’s already the case, they hope to expand their reach by offering support for DRM.

The Kodi team already announced that it was working on DRM support last year and with the “Kodi v18 Leia” release it’s now reality. This means that publishers can develop official addons which are capable of playing encrypted content.

Martijn Kaijser, Project lead of the XBMC Foundation from which the Kodi team operates, stresses that without DRM, mainstream adoption from publishers is not an option.

“In the past, we have talked to publishers and in almost all cases the first question was if we supported DRM. If not, that was the end of the talk. Others did have interest if we were going to add it and would come back to us if we would,” Kaijser says.

Mainstream adoption is a slow process though. Thus far there are no “official” addons using the DRM capabilities. However, the Kodi team hopes that these will come soon.

“Up till now, there is no official work or interest that I know of from providers. Our current motto is ‘if you implement it they will come’ so let’s hope this will indeed open doors,” Kaijser notes.

This doesn’t mean, however, that the DRM functionality is not being utilized. The Kodi team believes that several addons in their repository have it implemented already, including the Eurosport Player and the YouTube plugin.

The unofficial Netflix and Amazon addons, which are available elsewhere on the web, are confirmed to use the DRM functionality, according to Kaijser.

It has to be noted that DRM might not work perfectly everywhere, as the requirements can differ per platform and service. So there might be some restrictions.

“The first one we had working was Android because it has the system implemented in the Android API and has full 4K support depending on the license in place on the hardware. For Linux, we act as if we are a browser and then you are limited to what a browser can play,” Kaijser says.

That brings us to the main downside of DRM. For the end user, it is not always the most convenient option. However, in this case, it’s a choice between not having mainstream content available at all, or with limitations.

Let’s hope that users don’t get too frustrated by any of the possible DRM issues, as that may tempt them to look for alternatives.

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


It’s been more than six years since New Zealand and United States authorities collaborated to take down Megaupload. While the site itself is long gone, founder Kim Dotcom is putting up a determined fight.

At every twist and turn of his epic legal battle, Dotcom has challenged the efforts of authorities in multiple jurisdictions. The New Zealand courts, in particular, have seen sustained action.

From the beginning, Dotcom has aimed to extract as much information about his case as possible. From the seized data that was present on Megaupload’s servers to the information held by New Zealand authorities, Dotcom has chased down every bit, byte, letter, and document. At almost every turn, he’s met resistance.

In a series of tweets this morning, Dotcom has revealed a surprising turn of events in response to an order compelling authorities to provide him with data. New Zealand police have informed Dotcom’s lawyers that they haven’t complied with Human Rights Tribunal judgment because the information requested was generated before December 2013 and is no longer in the new IT system.

4.5 years later…..it’s all gone

“According to the new Attorney General David Parker (Labour Govt) he can’t comply with a judgment to provide me with information I’m entitled to because he doesn’t have access to the data of the previous Attorney General. What an utterly embarrassing mockery of New Zealand law,” Dotcom explains.

Information provided by Dotcom shows that the current Attorney-General David Parker has provided information held during his administration. However, the majority of the data requested by Dotcom’s team related to the term covered by his predecessor Chris Finlayson.

Citing several paragraphs of the New Zealand government’s Cabinet Manual relating to ‘Convention on access to Cabinet records of a previous administration’, Parker says he does not have access to information held under Finlayson’s watch. Dotcom’s lawyers immediately complained.

“This is an artificially narrow interpretation of the Tribunal’s order and the relevant rules and defeat the purpose of the order,” they wrote in a submission filed with the Human Rights Tribunal this morning, which also seeks an order for the government to comply with the Tribunal’s earlier judgment by July 31.

With that done, Dotcom turned his attention to a group of people he previously hoped would develop into allies but have yet to do so.

When the 2012 raid on Megaupload and Dotcom took place, it was under a National Party government. When they lost power to Labour in 2017, Dotcom appeared to adopt a more gentle tone, perhaps hoping that the new government would take the opportunity to declare his case a National Party mistake and one best forgotten.

Since it seems clear that isn’t going to happen, Dotcom’s tone is now changing for the worse.

“Let it be known. The new Labour government is continuing the unlawful persecution of my family while breaching every law and judgment in the land to prevent me from getting access to information that the New Zealand Supreme Court ruled I should have,” he warned this morning.

“The gloves are coming off!”

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


In recent years it has become much easier to stream movies, TV-shows and other media over the Internet.

Legal services such as Netflix and HBO are flourishing, but there’s also a darker side to this streaming epidemic.

Millions of people are streaming from unauthorized sources, often paired with perfectly legal streaming platforms and devices. This issue has become particularly problematic for Roku, which sells easy-to-use media players.

The company’s media players were banned from sale in Mexico last year, where the company has over a million users.

This ruling turned piracy into one of the company’s main priorities and it didn’t take for Roku to take action. It soon started building its in-house anti-piracy team and several pirate channels were banned from the platform, replaced by FBI warnings.

Today, roughly a year after Roku’s piracy woes hit the mainstream news, the company has released fresh details that show how effective its anti-piracy measures have been.

According to data collected directly from Roku’s platform this month, approximately 99.5% of all “streaming hours” come from channels with no links to ‘pirate organizations.’

In other words, the vast majority of the time spent streaming content on Roku is not related to piracy.

In Mexico, approximately 92% of streaming hours come from ‘legitimate’ channels, but Roku is confident that this number will align with the global average as time progresses.

While the new data show that piracy is relatively minimal, Roku doesn’t explain how this compares to a year ago. The company suggests, however, that there is a clear downward trend.

Previously, figures published by a Mexican market research firm estimated that forty percent of all Roku owners in the country use the device to access pirated content. However, that report didn’t look at the time spent viewing various channels.

The positive progress was achieved through a combination of enforcement efforts, Roku says.

The company says it tracked down more than 400 pirate organizations and removed all associated channels, for example. In addition, Roku also took action against thousands of social media pages that were used to promote allegedly infringing Roku channels.

These efforts have not been without controversy. They caused some backlash when legitimate YouTube and Netflix channels were accidentally replaced by FBI warnings, and recent bans of M3U playlist players are also called into question.

Roku, however, is not planning to ease up. Developers will now have to get certified before they can publish any channels and the company says it’s using automated technology to detect potential infringing content.

“Piracy hurts our business and the industry. We continue to devote considerable resources to fighting piracy by continuously improving our software, tools and detection methods to remove pirates from our platform,” Gary Ellison, Roku’s VP of trust engineering says.

“The data we are releasing today shows the effectiveness of our anti-piracy efforts. It is a top priority to ensure that our platform is closed for pirates and good for consumers.”

The data focuses on Mexico for a reason. Over the past several months, Roku has discussed its piracy efforts with Mexican government bodies and trade organizations and hopes its progress will eventually mean devices being welcomed back to local stores.

“Mexico can benefit greatly from legitimate TV streaming and should not let piracy stand in its way,” Matthew Anderson, Roku’s chief marketing officer says, commenting on the data.

“It’s time for all major leaders in the TV industry to work together to end piracy while giving consumers the wide choice of TV content they deserve,” he adds.

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 hundreds of millions of viewers from all over the world, the FIFA World Cup in Russia is one of the most anticipated sporting events of the year.

During these weeks, fans are most concerned with the performance of their favorite teams. For FIFA and all other stakeholders, however, the World Cup is also a battle against piracy.

While most people watch the matches through licensed broadcasters, there is a large group of people who resort to unauthorized sources. These so-called “pirate” streams are available via hundreds of sites or apps, generating millions of views during popular sporting events.

Other fans are using VPNs and proxies to bypass geo-blockades to tune into legal broadcasts. By changing their virtual location to one where the World Cup is freely accessible, they can watch without paying.

These types of ‘piracy’ are a thorn in the side of rightsholders, who are doing their best to take appropriate countermeasures. Sony Entertainment Network, for example, sent out preemptive takedown notices to streaming sites a few weeks ago.

More recently we spotted a takedown notice which NetResult sent to Google, on behalf of FIFA, targeting various allegedly infringing sites.

The list includes several known offenders, such as zorrostream.net and thefirstrow.eu, and asks Google to remove these sites from search results. In addition, it also targets several URLs which ‘advise’ users how they can access World Cup streams through a VPN, which some use to bypass geo-blockades.

For example, the takedown notice lists URLs from ExpressVPN and BestVPN, which explain how users can access FIFA World Cup matches from various locations.

“The listed URLs are all either linking directly to embedded live streams of unauthorized live football content (2018 FIFA World Cup), or advising users how to access unauthorized live streams not available in their territory,” the notice reads.

From the takedown notice

Interestingly, Google decided not to remove any of the reported URLs. The search engine has given no explanation, but it’s possible that the notice in question is seen as too general. In many cases, it points to the homepages of sites, without identifying a specific copyright infringement.

Whether it’s illegal to advise users how they can use a VPN to access World Cup streams is also up for debate.

Finally, it appears that not all of the URLs identified in FIFA’s takedown notice are actually infringing. The list also includes a page from the Canadian sports service Sportsnet.ca, which is owned by Rogers Media.

FIFA’s notice also targets the American sports streaming service FuboTV, which is partly funded by investors such as AMC Networks, 21st Century Fox, and Sky.

Considering the latter, it might be wise that Google didn’t blindly honor the request.

TorrentFreak reached out to NetResult’s parent company MarkMonitor for more information on FIFA’s takedown efforts, but the company informed us that it couldn’t comment on individual brands or companies.

FIFA and other rightsholders, meanwhile, continue to fight World Cup piracy globally and on several fronts. In addition to VPN tips and traditional streaming sites, they’re also up against alleged pirate TV services such as BeoutQ, and Fly TV from Ghana.

Game on.

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


2017 saw the birth of two major anti-piracy coalitions with some common members and similar goals.

The Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) was formed by 30 major players including Disney, HBO, and NBCUniversal. Several of the same media giants are also involved in the Coalition Against Piracy (CAP).

CAP coordinates anti-piracy efforts in Asia and is backed by CASBAA, Disney, Fox, HBO Asia, NBCUniversal, Premier League, Turner Asia-Pacific, A&E Networks, Astro, BBC Worldwide, National Basketball Association, TV5MONDE, Viacom International, and others.

From the outset, CAP has had the stated aim of tackling the pirate set-top box market. CAP General Manager Neil described their prevalence as “staggering” and a new report published this morning appears to back that up.

The newly released survey, commissioned by CAP and carried out by YouGov, reveals that one in four Hong Kong consumers own a set-top box that can be used to stream pirated TV and movies content.

“TV boxes BossTV (9%), Ubox (7%), EVPad (6%), Lingcod (5%), and Magic Box (4%), which come pre-loaded with applications allowing ‘plug-and-play’ access to pirated content, are among the most popular ISDs amongst Hong Kong consumers,” the study reveals.

It’s claimed that these devices, which often contain piracy-enabled Kodi setups, dedicated Android apps, and players configured to receive pirate IPTV services, are taking chunks out legitimate content distributors’ userbases. The survey offers some evidence to that end and the numbers are significant.

Of the quarter of all consumers who own a piracy-enabled set-top box, almost half (49%) told the survey that they had canceled all or some of their subscriptions to legal pay-TV services as a result.

Slightly more than one in four (26%) claimed to have canceled their subscription to a local premium provider as a direct consequence of owning a pirate box, with 21% saying the same for their international subscriptions. Almost a fifth (19%) claimed to have canceled a part of their traditional cable TV bundle after acquiring a device,

In common with other players in the anti-piracy space, the Coalition Against Piracy has a two-pronged strategy when it comes to presenting this information to the public. In addition to highlighting the damage these devices can do to the suppliers of entertainment, CAP warns customers of the negative issues they face as users.

“The damage that content theft does to the creative industries is without dispute. However, the damage done to consumers themselves, because of the nexus between content piracy and malware, is only beginning to be recognized,” CAP Managing Director Neil Gane says.

“The piracy ecosystem is a hotbed for malware, whether purchasing ISDs from Sham Shui Po’s Golden Arcade [a popular electronics ‘hotspot’ in Hong Kong] or downloading content from infamous torrent sites.

“Unfortunately the appetite for free or paying cheap subscription rates for stolen content, blinkers some consumers from the real risks of malicious malware infection such as spyware,” Gane adds.

While it is certainly possible to download content that contains malware from torrent sites, people who use set-top boxes to stream content rarely do so from torrent sites. Streaming platforms and file-locker sites are the number one source for video and malware almost never transfers to devices in this manner.

The effort to associate malware with set-top boxes running Kodi is nothing new but the claims are not without challenge. A report published by TorrentFreak earlier this month revealed that several major anti-virus vendors are entirely unaware of any such threat.

That’s not to say there aren’t issues with malicious software, of course. People buying ready-configured Android boxes, for example, could have almost anything inserted into their devices pre-sale, so it really is a matter of ‘buyer beware.’

Overall, however, there can be little doubt that these devices are having an impact on legitimate distribution models particularly considering their popularity with younger people. The study found that the boxes are particularly popular with high-income 25-34-year-olds, which is a desirable and valuable market for distributors.

“The illicit streaming device (ISD) ecosystem is impacting all businesses involved in the production and distribution of legitimate content,” says Louis Boswell, CEO of Casbaa.

“ISD piracy is also organized crime, pure and simple, with crime syndicates making substantial illicit revenues from the provision of illegally re-transmitted TV channels and the sale of such ISDs.”

In addition to public information campaigns, CASBAA welcomes enforcement action against those involved in the growing industry.

In May, Hong Kong customs arrested seven men and one woman while seizing more than 350 pirate devices. Last October, ACE and CAP teamed up to shut down an illicit IPTV provider in Australia.

While these operations are touted as successes, it will take a remarkable effort to stem the tide of this piracy juggernaut which has now spread to every major country on the planet.

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


Online censorship has always been a hot topic and with the EU’s proposed “upload filters” hitting the headlines, it’s at the top of the agenda once again.

The fear of losing the ability to share ‘memes’ plays well on social media. Similarly, many journalists happily use ‘censorship’ in their headlines as, apparently, the fate of the Internet is at stake.

A common theme is that, if the plans are implemented, powerful corporations may soon decide whether you can share something online – fair use or not. While to a degree this fear is warranted, it’s also nothing new.

The ‘censorship machines’ are already up and running as we speak.

YouTube, to give an example, regularly takes down videos for dubious reasons. Some are pulled manually after rightsholders file complaints, while many more are targeted by YouTube’s automated piracy filters.

It’s not clear how many ‘memes’ are killed in the process, but what many people describe as the ‘censorship’ that will ‘destroy the Internet,’ is already fully operational on the largest video sharing platform of all.

But the problem goes even further. Aside from copyright issues, YouTube also demonetizes certain accounts because their content isn’t advertiser-friendly. There is still free speech, to a certain degree, but not all speech can be monetized.

Mind you, this policy is not forced by the EU. It’s regular business practice on the same platform where people are currently sharing their EU censorship warnings. Let that sink in for a minute…

Meme killers

These issues are not limited to YouTube of course. Many other sites have automated filters or approve questionable takedowns.

This week, for example, Twitter removed a video of a cheering kid, because the World Cup was playing on a TV in the background. Also, accounts – including prominent ones – are frequently suspended for alleged copyright infringements which may be fair use.

Similarly, Facebook is known to police its network for possibly infringing content. Like YouTube and others, they use automated filters to spot possibly infringing content, which it takes down before asking questions.

Given the above, there is some irony to the fact that sites like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are the main venues used by people protesting the EU’s looming censorship machines.

Yes, the EU plans will force smaller companies to spend money on anti-piracy measures, above and beyond what they do now. They will potentially increase liability and uncertainty for startups too. That’s a legitimate concern. But censorship machines are nothing new.

If we use the same rhetoric seen in various “upload filter” protests, the Internet is already being ‘destroyed’ by the Twitters, Facebooks, and YouTubes of this world.

In the current climate, many large platforms will resort to filtering tools or other measures to stop copyright infringements. Their aim is to protect rightsholders, which is understandable, but unfortunately, that can also lead to collateral damage.

The good news is that YouTube, or Facebook, or Twitter, are not the Internet. The Internet will be totally fine. If history has shown us anything, it’s that clever people will come up with new ways to defeat censorship attempts.

While it may sound alien to many, there are alternatives for all these platforms – alternatives that people can host and control themselves. Not to pirate, but to ensure that people can share their legal work without having to worry about overzealous censorship machines.

The real question is, perhaps, if the broader public will ever be ready for these kinds of tools.

Twenty years ago the Internet was a place where a lot of people built stuff, but today it’s mostly a place to consume. There are still plenty of creators and contributors, but these mostly rely on large platforms over which they have no control themselves.

These platforms are convenient, have a broad audience, and even allow some people to make a living. However, they also have power and control over what people are allowed to do and share, memes included. And many (ab)use that power, whether the EU tells them to or not.

Instead of resorting to Twitter activism and YouTube outrage people can also take matters into their own hands, of course, but that would require some work…

Perhaps someone can start a campaign for that?

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


On Tuesday we reported that several YouTube channels had all their videos blocked worldwide. This included those belonging to MIT OpenCourseWare,’ the ‘Blender Foundation,’ and many others.

The error message that was displayed typically appears for copyright reasons. However, in this case, the problem was more complicated, related to a new license agreement, among other things.

While some prominent channels have now been restored, others still face similar issues. The people at Human Beatbox, for example, tell us that they are experiencing the same problem, which at the time of writing is still not fixed.

YouTube simply informed them that its a “technical issue” which the engineers are trying to resolve. Meanwhile, all videos of theirs and many other channels have been inaccessible for nearly a week…

Whatever the problem is, it’s clearly a ‘mistake’ of epic proportions.

While YouTube probably has no intention to ‘censor’ these channels, it shows what can go wrong if creators put their faith in the hands of a single service. A service they have no control over at all, which removes your content, erroneously or not.

Luckily there are some alternatives that put creators in control again. PeerTube is one of these options.

When the Blender Foundation had all its videos blocked by YouTube earlier this week, a decision was taken to give this alternative a try. In a matter of hours, Blender had a fully operational streaming site, one which they had complete control over.

This prompted TF to take a closer look at PeerTube and what it has to offer.

Blender testing PeerTube

Put simply, PeerTube allows anyone to set up their own video streaming site. This can run independently, but it can also be linked, or federated, with other PeerTube instances to create a broader reach. All with P2P steaming support.

The first version of PeerTube launched last year. It’s operated by the small French company Framasoft, and thus far it hasn’t really broken through in English-speaking countries. The Blender Foundation’s problems, while very unfortunate, may change that.

“Blender’s example illustrates our main goal: autonomy, independence from external platforms. When you centralize videos and attention, you gain power over the users. Our approach goes the other way,” Framasoft’s Pouhiou tells TF.

PeerTube comes with built-in WebTorrent support. This means that viewers also contribute their bandwidth, which can come in handy if a video goes viral.

To ‘federate’ with other PeerTube instances, the software uses the ActivityPub protocol, which is also used by the popular social networking software Mastodon. This helps to grow the video library if needed, but it’s entirely optional.

“Federation allows diversity in the governances: each PeerTube Instance Hoster can determine their own set of rules, their settings, their moderation policy, etcetera,” Pouhiou says.

Embedding a PeerTube video

The idea behind PeerTube is to let creators regain control over their content. This helps to avoid censorship in the broadest sense of the word, and also “problems” that block videos for days on end.

It’s this spirit that also drives the developers to make the software entirely free and open.

“To us, it is really about taking back the web into our own hands. We have a joke about the ‘Power to the people’ song of John Lennon: PeerTube is kind of ‘Software to the people’,” Pouhiou tells us.

“That’s why PeerTube has to be Free-Libre software: not even we should be able to ‘close’ the code, it would give us way too much power, which we don’t want.”

Of course, there are plenty of downsides to alternatives like PeerTube. For one, in terms of costs, they are not free to operate. Even though WebTorrent can limit the bandwidth bill to a degree, it requires hosting and some technical skills.

Monetizing PeerTube videos will also require more work. You can’t just click a button and magically start earning money. And then there’s the issue of reaching a wide audience, which may be harder for creators who are ‘locked’ into external services.

That said, for outfits such as Blender and MIT OpenSourceWare which are non-profit and have their own sites which people know how to find, it makes a lot of sense.

At the least, everyone who relies on external platforms might want to stop and think for a minute if they really want to put all their eggs in someone else’s basket.

More information on PeerTube can be found on the official site. The company recently launched a crowdfunding campaign to ensure continued development, which has raised over €20,000 at the time of writing.

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


Until the turn of the decade, obtaining online pirate content was almost exclusively achieved by individuals with desktop and laptop computers. With the rise of streaming, set-top devices are now the major entry point.

With Kodi-enabled Android devices grabbing much of the attention (and criticism), other platforms have also been feeling the heat.

Despite offering plenty of legitimate content such as HBO Go, Hulu, and Netflix and playing no active role in the provision of unlicensed media, Roku is one of those enduring a bumpy ride.

Last year following a complaint from Cablevision, the Superior Court of Justice of the City of Mexico handed down a ban, prohibiting stores like Amazon from importing and selling Roku devices due to third parties offering unlicensed content via the platform.

It didn’t take long for Roku to react. Last August the company began displaying warnings to users who added channels to their device that weren’t obtained via the official Roku store. Then just a month later, it was revealed that Roku was assembling its own anti-piracy team.

In the background the legal wheels turned, with Roku trying everything in its power to have the Mexico ban overturned. As of today the ban remains with no clear end in sight but that doesn’t mean that Roku has been standing still.

It appears that on May 23, a group of Mexican journalists was welcomed to Roku’s Silicon Valley headquarters. Just days later, Roku CEO Anthony Wood and Marketing Director Matthew Anderson visited Mexico City. While these events were no doubt designed to build bridges, Mexico’s Telecommunications Law Institute (IDET) painted the efforts in a rather different light.

According to El Economista, IDET said the moves were designed to exert pressure on the judiciary and to sway public opinion in favor of Roku.

“[Roku’s] intention is to influence the judges who are reviewing this case, which formally has not begun,” said IDET member Gonzalo Rojón.

“We feel they are doing that because they want to influence the judges, but the truth is that intellectual property rights are still not respected and the truth is that this is a very strong problem for Mexico.”

In a response, Roku denied this interpretation, stating that their aim is to introduce Mexico to its business and to demonstrate the measures it takes to counter copyright-infringing content.

“On May 23, we invited a group of Mexican journalists to the Roku headquarters in Silicon Valley to introduce them to the company and our history in the streaming market and also to explain the strong anti-piracy measures we have implemented in Mexico and around the world,” Marketing Director Matthew Anderson explained.

“Right now, we feel it is very important to help journalists and the public understand more about Roku and our history, that we are a reliable company, particularly for the leading content generation companies in the world that distribute their content on the platform. We want to explain the anti-piracy measures we are taking.”

While both IDET and Roku agree that piracy is a problem, there is a difference of opinion on where the bounds of responsibility lie. IDET holds Roku to blame when unlicensed content appears via its service but Roku insists that piracy is an Internet-wide issue that has spread to platforms everywhere.

IDET has been extremely vocal on the topic and has published three press releases on the subject of Roku during the last couple of weeks. They say that Roku needs to do more, holding up competitors such as Apple TV and Google Chromecast as examples of set-top devices that tackle piracy well.

“Roku seeks to become the most economical, simple and accessible device in the streaming market. Its competitors in this segment are Apple TV and the giant Google that have similar devices which, however, do not face legal conflicts similar to those of Roku,” IDET writes.

“It is a cheap and accessible technology but it allows the streaming of stolen signals directly to the television screen. [Roku’s] Matthew Anderson, who comes from the legitimate content generation industry, assures that Roku strives to bring to the market a ‘legal’ means of downloading content. But with a presence in 23 countries, more than 45,000 associated channels, and more than 21 million accounts, Roku – unlike Apple TV and Google – is still vulnerable.”

There is no dispute that Roku wants to reduce piracy and IDET agrees that Roku in no way advertises or encourages any means to infringe and it is third-parties abusing Roku that are to blame. However, Roku and IDET seem to have a difference of opinion as to how this should be tackled.

For its part, Roku says that once it’s advised that infringing content is being made available via its platform, it takes steps to eliminate it. It’s a system employed by Internet platforms all over the world and recognized as being at the core of the DMCA, for example.

IDET, however, wants Roku to be more proactive. It says that once the content has been made available via Roku the damage has already been done and it appears that unlike some of its competitors, Roku has not found a solution to that problem.

“Why can Apple or Google prevent this situation? Because their devices eliminate the possibility of distributing stolen material in advance. It’s just a technology issue. It is not understood why an important streaming platform, such as Roku, has not been able to turn this problem around,” IDET says.

With the import and sales ban stubbornly in place, IDET says that no one wants Roku devices off the market. They’re good for competition and provide consumers with more options. However, Roku will have to do more if it wants to do business in Mexico, a solution that IDET insists is merely a technical step away.

“No one is against selling Roku devices in the market. On the contrary, the promotion of competition is applauded and the consumers of audiovisual content have more and better and better options to decide,” IDET writes.

“What is unfortunate is that this high caliber competitor can not resolve the intrusion of piracy on his device. In the end it is just a matter of technology to invest in an appropriate software. Hopefully it will be resolved soon.”

Reports that 40% of all Roku users in Mexico are pirates certainly don’t help the company’s case (Roku contests the figure) but by banning services such as the popular cCloud, the company shows good intent that may eventually pave the way for the ban to be lifted in Mexico.

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


We have been relatively quiet for a while and several months have past since the first pre-release Alpha build. Today we present you the second official Alpha build in this pre-release trilogy. It is a continuation of the first one which was released beginning of March and contains our continous battle against the dark side that consist of bugs and usability problems.





Source link


Right now, life isn’t particularly pleasant for the founder of TVAddons.

As previously documented, Adam Lackman is being sued by an army of Canadian telecoms giants including Bell Canada, Bell ExpressVu, Bell Media, Videotron, Groupe TVA, Rogers Communications and Rogers Media.

With mixed results in court thus far, last week saw bailiffs for the plaintiffs revisit Lackman’s home, hoping to secure property to pay off CAD$50,000 in costs run up by the telco’s attorneys.

In the end, however, the bailiffs only earmarked a laptop and two “near worthless” prints. The goods will be sold at auction come July 31 unless Lackman can come up with the cash amount, which has now swelled to CAD$57,500.

With this latest aggressive act ringing in his ears, it appears that TVAddons have been considering what can be done to safeguard the future of the site. Lackman, perhaps understandably, is now seen as a potential Achilles’ Heel, something which has prompted a fresh announcement about his future.

“Under immense pressure, our team and I have decided that it would be best if I resigned from an administrative role in order to protect the longevity of our platform,” he informs TF.

“I will continue to remain onboard in a marketing position, also doing general community outreach like I always have.”

More information is available in a TVAddons post on the topic, which also details the rather unusual method used to select his successor.

“In selecting the individual to replace Adam in his former role as administrator, an automated script was used to randomly select his replacement from amongst our most trusted senior staff,” the report reads.

“At the time of selection, the automated script also delivered relevant passwords which the new administrator then changed so that only he would know them. Only the staff member selected knows that he is our new platform administrator.”

While unusual in its reported execution, it doesn’t take a genius to work out that given the ongoing assault on TVAddons, this latest move is designed to take the pressure off Lackman. We asked him if not being the operator of the site would be helpful moving forward.

“When we relaunched last August, it was decided amongst our team members that I would not be the owner of the new domain. The new owner was selected in a similar fashion to how the new admin was selected. I can’t say who the owner is, and actually I don’t know his identity anyway,” Lackman explained.

“I have therefore not been the owner of the new site since it was launched. And since we launched it without any of the assets of the previous website, we see it as an entirely new entity.”

Given the circumstances surrounding the resignation and the subsequent and unusual appointment of a successor, TF further asked whether the move would be viewed as credible by the telcos and their operatives. Lackman said he didn’t know but pointed out that since he’d been honest over ownership details in the past, that could stand him in good stead for the future.

“Considering I gave them the domains last year pursuant to their court order, even though they were owned overseas by a corporation in the first place, it should show them that I respect the law and the courts and would not take action to circumvent their authority,” he said.

“However, I am also not sure it matters whether the plaintiffs believe it or not, as they have demonstrated a willingness to create their own narrative in order to suit their own agenda anyway.”

In a final note, the TVAddons team says that their new administrator is likely to “surface publicly” in a few weeks’ time, something which could be followed shortly after by some upgrades to the site.

Update: Lackman informs TF that after speaking with his lawyers, they will be blocking the seizure of his laptop which falls under the seizure exemption of “work instruments needed for the exercise of your profession.”

“The bailiff would have known that the laptop was exempt, but put it down for seizure for the purpose of causing me additional grief in having to take legal measures to ensure that it is not seized,” he says.

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