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

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

Back in April, the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), an anti-piracy partnership forged between Hollywood studios, Netflix, Amazon, and more than two dozen other companies, sued Florida-based Set Broadcast, LLC.

The entertainment industry companies accused Set Broadcast of running SET TV, an unauthorized IPTV service offering otherwise subscription TV channels and media without appropriate licensing.

“Defendants market and sell subscriptions to ‘Setvnow,’ a software application that Defendants urge their customers to use as a tool for the mass infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted motion pictures and television shows,” the complaint reads.

Despite the legal pressure, SET TV had remained online but that all changed last week when it suddenly disappeared. In response to customer complaints, SET TV implied that technical issues might be to blame and it would eventually return.

However, a filing with a California District court this week reveals that the SET TV ride appears to be over.

“Setvnow is no longer available. It is no longer marketed and subscriptions are no longer sold,” lawyers for Set Broadcast, LLC reveal in their filing.

What follows is a point-by-point addressing of each issue raised in the ACE complaint, with three features catching the eye: acceptance that they offered a content service, claims that they lack knowledge and information on a large number of points, plus repeated use of the word ‘deny’ whenever infringement is mentioned.

Set TV begins by admitting that it sold subscriptions to its service and acknowledging that marketing material detailed in the ACE lawsuit looks familiar. It also concedes that it encouraged users to download and install the Setvnow software on various devices. The company also agrees that it sold a hardware box that was, at least in part, designed to work with the Setvnow service.

However, in response to claims of marketing efforts informing “customers who want more of a cable box experience” that for just $89, they can “simply turn it on and watch TV” without having to do anything more than “PLUG AND PLAY,” the defendants claim to lack knowledge or information.

From here, at least as far as a technical rebuttal to ACE claims go, the responses are relatively blunt and often repetitive to read.

First up, ACE claimed that defendants sold illegal access to their copyright works, but that’s something Set Broadcast flatly denies.

ACE also noted that while the service provided “hallmarks of using authorized streaming services” such as a friendly interface, customers only paid money to Set Broadcast, not the copyright owners. Set Broadcast says it has no knowledge of how customers perceived the service but admits to not paying any money to ACE “for the Setvnow service.”

To the next dozen points, Set Broadcast claims to have “no knowledge or information”, mostly in response to basic statements of fact such as who the plaintiffs are and where their offices are located.

In response to the claim that defendant Jason Labossiere is the owner and operator of Set Broadcast, LLC, Set Broadcast issues a flat denial but offers no additional information. Further details concerning Nelson Johnson, a manager at Set Broadcast, are also picked over, with questions raised over his employment status and place of residence.

From here, Set Broadcast addresses a number of statements made by ACE members regarding who the plaintiffs are, what they do, and what content they own. On each count, Set Broadcast claims to have no knowledge or information, which makes for fairly bland and unconvincing reading.

That being said, Set Broadcast doesn’t shy away from responding on a number of crucial issues. The company acknowledges that promotional material produced by the plaintiffs, showing that the SET TV service offered 500 channels and “thousands” of “on demand” options for $20, is theirs.

It also admits to selling subscriptions and concedes that the SET TV software facilitated streaming of “captured content”, including live content, and delivered it to Setvnow users. The company also admits to using third-party sources for on-demand content.

But despite admitting to many of ACE’s claims over the marketing and provision of the service, whenever the plaintiffs used the word “infringing” to describe the nature of the content delivered to users, Set Broadcast has a one-word response.

“Defendants’ customers use Setvnow for intended and unquestionably infringing purposes, most notably to obtain immediate, unrestricted, and unauthorized access to unauthorized streams of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works,” ACE wrote.

“Deny,” came the response.

“Defendants promote the use of Setvnow for overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, infringing purposes, and that is how their customers use Setvnow,” ACE added.

“Deny,” Set Broadcast repeats.

With a distinct pattern emerging, there’s no need to detail the one-word response to each of ACE’s allegations including that the defendants willfully and intentionally induced and contributed to the infringement of their rights and that ACE members are entitled to damages and Defendants’ profits in amounts to be proven at trial.

The claim that ACE members are entitled to attorneys’ fees plus preliminary and permanent injunctions are also given the same two-syllable treatment. However, at the end of the filing, Set Broadcast springs into life, detailing three affirmative defenses against all of ACE’s charges.

First up, Set Broadcast claims that ACE failed to mitigate damages. Second, the company states that “Plaintiffs’ claims are barred to the extent Plaintiffs have forfeited or abandoned copyright or failed to comply with necessary formalities.” Finally, Set Broadcast suggests it could be an “innocent infringer”.

“Damages are limited under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2) because Defendants ‘were not aware and had no reason to believe that [their] acts constituted an infringement of copyright’,” Set concludes.

Since SET TV is now apparently a thing of the past, it will be interesting to see how this case develops. While Set Broadcast flatly denies any infringement of ACE members’ rights, it doesn’t deny that it’s been running a pay service which facilitates the delivery of third-party content to its customers.

The big questions now are whether the case will ever head to a full trial and if the defenses cited by SET TV provide more than a sliver of hope for the company.

—

A copy of Set Broadcast’s response to ACE’s complaint 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

Soon after the turn of the century, P2P consumption of unlicensed media quickly dominated the file-sharing landscape.

The BitTorrent protocol emerged as the unchallenged kind of peer-to-peer transfers and for many years no rival could get anywhere near its level of market saturation.

Then, soon after the turn of the decade, the tide began to turn. With cheaper, faster bandwidth becoming increasingly available to a broader user base, opportunities to stream content directly from websites gathered unprecedented momentum. What began several years earlier as a relatively niche activity, soon turned into a content monster.

This critical shift in consumption habits was interesting on several fronts, not least since it made piracy accessible to relative novices via the growing Internet-enabled set-top box market.

As a result, illegal streaming is now considered one of the major threats, but various pro-copyright groups are concerned that current legislation doesn’t go far enough to tackle those involved in supply.

The problem was summed up in April 2015 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee by then-Register of Copyrights Maria Pallante.

“Currently, criminals who engage in unlawful internet streaming can only be charged with a misdemeanor, even though those who unlawfully reproduce and distribute copyrighted material can be charged with a felony,” Pallante said.

“This distinction makes no sense. As streaming becomes a dominant method of obtaining content online, unlawful streaming has no less of an adverse impact on the rights of copyright owners than unlawful distribution.”

In a new paper published by the Free State Foundation (FSF), a think tank founded in 2006 which receives regular donations from the MPAA, streaming is again described as a misdemeanor offense and one that should be taken more seriously to protect copyright holders.

In its report ‘Modernizing Criminal Copyright Law to Combat Online Piracy’, FSF notes that copyright holders face difficulties prosecuting mass-scale willful infringement via civil lawsuits. So, to give them the assistance they require, Congress should upgrade piracy via streaming to a felony offense.

“Congress should update criminal copyright law to better address growing copyright piracy taking place through online streaming sites and enabled by illicit streaming devices,” FSF writes.

“Currently, willful copyright infringement via online streaming is only a misdemeanor, whereas willful infringement via digital downloading is a felony when statutory minimums are satisfied.

“This disparate treatment of streaming and downloading has no principled basis. Consumers increasingly access copyrighted video and music through streaming.”

FSF states that punishments for misdemeanor copyright infringement (willful infringements of exclusive rights other than reproduction and distribution) include up to a year of prison and a fine of up to $100,000, or both.

Punishments for felony copyright infringement usually include up to five years in prison or a $250,000 fine, or both. Due to its scope, the latter option for serious offenses is viewed by FSF as a more significant deterrent that can better protect copyright holders.

“By making willful infringement of multiple or high value copyrighted works via online streaming a felony, Congress would empower law enforcement to better combat black market online traffickers in copyrighted content,” FSF adds.

In addition to the more severe sentencing of those who stream to the public, FSF would like to see law enforcement given more tools to catch them in the act in the first instance. In some quarters, its suggestions are likely to be viewed as extremely controversial.

“Additionally, Congress should consider providing federal law enforcement with more tools, including the authority to seek wiretaps to obtain evidence of suspected criminal copyright activities, to combat online piracy. Similar wiretap authority already exists in the case of theft of trade secrets and economic espionage,” FSF writes.

The report isn’t specific as to which players should be disrupted via such legislation, but repeated references to piracy-enabled set-top boxes, addon-enabled software, hosting services and others in the streaming ecosystem indicates a tendency towards plugging loopholes across the board in a largely untested and still-developing market.

What also seems clear is a desire to shift enforcement costs onto the state, rather than them being carried entirely by copyright holders who would otherwise have to engage in difficult and expensive civil litigation.

“Despite suffering substantial harm on account of online piracy, copyright owners are often ill-equipped and financially unable to combat such piracy through civil lawsuits,” FSF reports.

“Pirates of copyrighted content are not often amenable to service of process and to civil litigation. Unsurprisingly, many technically sophisticated online piracy operations are designed to avoid accountability to copyright holders and to the civil justice system.

“Thus, circumstances clearly exist in which the civil justice system is inadequate or unable to address or combat online piracy operations.”

While the terminology used in the FSF report can at times suggest a tightening of the law against those who stream to the public and those who consume streaming content, it eventually makes clear that such legislation should be directed “to online traffickers in copyrighted content, not individual Internet users.”

It also states that “reasonable safe harbor provisions” should exist for online service providers to receive immunity from criminal and civil liability, providing they remove or disable access to infringing content when advised by a rightsholder.

Considering the donations FSF receives from the MPAA, it’s probably safe to assume that the report’s recommendations are broadly aligned with those of the Hollywood group. In that respect, it’s interesting that the studios feel that current law exposes them in some way.

Thus far, tools to tackle administrators of pirate streaming sites in the US don’t appear to have been lacking but perhaps there is currently a little too much room for maneuver.

The full report can be downloaded 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

To protect copyright holders, YouTube uses an advanced piracy recognition system that flags and disables videos which are used without permission.

This system, known as Content ID, works well most of the time, but it is far from perfect.

It’s not well equipped to determine whether content deployment is protected under ‘fair use’, and in some cases it even views white noise or birds chirping as piracy.

Over the past several days, an even more worrying trend has appeared. Several popular YouTube accounts including those belonging to ‘MIT OpenCourseWare‘ and the ‘Blender Foundation,’ have suddenly had all their videos blocked.

People who try to watch one of the freely available MIT courses on YouTube get the following message, which typically appears if an uploader doesn’t have the rights to show content locally.

“This video contains content from MIT. It is not available in your country.”

The message appears in all locations that we were able to check, suggesting that it may very well apply worldwide. In any case, on social media there’s no shortage of people mentioning that they can no longer access the courses.

Blocked courseware…

The issue hasn’t gone unnoticed by MIT’s OpenCourseWare team which is investigating the matter, without pointing fingers.

“You may have noticed that we are having some trouble with our videos! Please stand by. The elves are working around the clock to fix the issue,” they write, referring people to non-video content in the meantime.

Interestingly, the MIT case doesn’t appear to be an isolated incident. Another organization that was hit by the same mysterious blocking efforts is the Blender Foundation.

The nonprofit organization, which is leading the development of the open source 3D content-creation application Blender, has also had its videos blocked.

Ton Roosendaal, Chairman of the Blender Foundation, noticed the issue on Saturday and contacted YouTube. “This is most probably an error from their side,” Roosendaal said.

At the time of writing, the issue still hasn’t been resolved.

What the heck…

Both organizations have verified YouTube accounts and many subscribers, which makes them high profile targets. However, two days have passed and it’s still unclear what’s going on.

The blocking message is part of YouTube’s piracy filter system, but why it was triggered is unknown. As the original publishers, both certainly have the right to publish the videos in question.

Looking even further, we were able to spot dozens of accounts which show similar “blocking” messages. They include verified ones, such as India’s Press Information Bureau, soccer club Sparta Praha, and England Rugby.

TorrentFreak reached out to YouTube to ask why the videos of these accounts have been blocked but at the time of publication, we had yet to hear back. Something appears to be awfully wrong though.

The timing of the incident is interesting, to say the least. This week there’s an important vote scheduled in the European Parliament, which will determine the course of EU copyright law.

One of the most contested changes is the so-called “upload filter,” which is detailed in Article 13 of the copyright reform proposal. According to opponents, such YouTube-like piracy filters are a threat to free speech.

These apparent “mistakes” show that there is a point to that.

Ironically, even French politicians, who were expected to vote in favor of the upload filters, may now reconsider their stance after YouTube temporarily disabled their account following three copyright strikes.

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