For the past several years, Russia has been attempting to censor the Internet by restricting access to a large range of sites. With thousands blocked, pirate sites are some of the main targets but any site with content objectionable to the state can find itself in the crosshairs.
As more blocks have been introduced, the response by many Internet users has been to circumvent them. For pirate sites, proxies and mirrors have been a key mechanism but increasingly citizens have turned to VPNs and other anonymizers that are able to skirt around any ban.
As a result, VPNs and anonymizers themselves have come under scrutiny, with authorities demanding that those operating in Russia register themselves with the state. Of course, many do not, which has led to a cat-and-mouse game.
Historically it’s been easy to find a VPN or similar service using search engines but the Russian Government has a new tool to make that harder. This week, following a third and final reading, the State Duma adopted a bill introducing fines for search engines that provide links to outlawed sites, VPNs and anonymization tools.
According to the amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, failure of online services to stop publishing links to blocked information resources will result in fines of 3,000 to 5,000 rubles ($48 to $80) for citizens, up to 50,000 rubles ($800) for officials, and between 500,000 to 700,000 ($8,019 to $11,227) for legal entities.
In order to advise which sites and services are banned in the country, the Federal State Information System (FGIS) will provide access to an up-to-date database of blocked domains. Search engines will be required to connect to this system within 30 days and those who fail to do so will face fines similar to those detailed above.
TASS reports that the amendments are concomitant with the law on anonymizers adopted at the end of the spring session of the State Duma in 2017. This legislation requires owners and operators of VPN and anonymization systems to first register their identities with the authorities and then connect to the blocked sites register.
Those who fail to comply with the requirements can find themselves fined and placed on the blocked sites register, which is maintained by Russian telecoms watchdog Roscomnadzor.
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/network.jpg2501200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2018-06-08 15:42:532018-06-08 15:42:53Russian Govt Approves Fines For Search Engines Linking to Banned VPNs
On May 8, 2010, German citizen Michael Strotzer was the operator of an Internet connection from where an audiobook was made available on a peer-to-peer network.
Germany company Bastei Lübbe AG owned the copyrights to that content and had not given Strotzer permission to share it online. So, on October 28, 2010, Bastei Lübbe wrote to Strotzer with a demand for him to stop infringing their copyrights.
When the company’s letter failed to have the desired effect, Bastei Lübbe took Strotzer to court in Germany in an effort to obtain financial compensation for the alleged damages caused.
Strotzer denied that he had personally carried out the copyright infringement and said that his home network was secure. He also noted that his parents, who lived at the same address, had access to his network.
However, they did not have the audiobook on their computer and did not use file-sharing networks. In addition, he said that their computer had been turned off at the time when the audiobook was shared online.
The Court dismissed the action against Strotzer on the grounds that the copyright infringement could not be directly attributed to him since his parents could also have shared the audiobook. in response, Bastei Lübbe filed an appeal with the Regional Court of First Instance in Munich.
The Court said it was inclined to assume that Michael Strotzer was responsible for the infringement since it wasn’t clear from his statements that third parties had used his network and it was “highly likely” that the infringement was committed by him.
Case law, however, presented issues. The Federal Court previously ruled that it is for the copyright holder to prove the infringement. It also ruled that the Internet connection owner is likely to have committed the infringement if no-one else could have used his Internet connection at the time of the infringement.
That being said, if the internet connection was not sufficiently secure or was available to use by other people at the time of the infringement, the connection owner should disclose the identity of those people, effectively putting those people in the frame.
However, under Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which ensures the right to respect for a citizen’s private and family life, it was argued that the owner of the connection is not required to provide further information if a family member has had access to his network.
With this in mind, the Munich court referred the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for guidance. Advocate General Szpunar published his opinion yesterday in 21 different languages (except English) but thanks to lawyer Eleonora Rosati, we have his findings in a nutshell.
“[Advocate General Szpunar] advised the CJEU to rule that EU law does not require to provide, at the national level, a presumption of liability of the owner of an internet connection for copyright infringements committed through such connection,” Rosati writes.
“However, if national law envisages such presumption to ensure the protection of copyright, this shall be applied coherently to guarantee effective copyright protection.
“In this sense, the right to family and private life under Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights may not be interpreted in such as way as to deprive copyright owners of any possibility of effective protection of their own intellectual property, the protection of which is mandated by Article 17(2) of the EU Charter,” Rosati adds.
In other words, if a country (in this case Germany) has national laws that reduce the burdens of proof in order to help protect copyright law (something which is not mandatory under EU law), it should not be the case that rightsholders are unable to enforce their rights due to an apparent conflict with the right to respect for private family life.
“If one was able to invoke Article 7 of the Charter to avoid having to disclose the names of those who might have used the connection, then the copyright owner would be deprived of his IP right,” Rosati explains.
“In any case, should a national court deem such intrusion into one’s own right to family life inadmissible, then the owner of the internet connection should be presumed liable for the relevant infringement, insofar as the copyright owner has no other means to identify the actual infringers.”
When cases are referred to the CJEU, the opinions and subsequent decisions of the Court often contain language which aims to balance what are often seen as conflicting rights. In this case, it’s suggested that the right to family life should not be (ab)used in order to avoid liability in a matter where the rights of another party have been infringed.
The opinion of the Advocate General is not binding but the CJEU generally follows such advice.
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/copyright-featured.jpg2501200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2018-06-08 00:41:522018-06-08 00:41:52EU Advocate General: Right to Private Life Shouldn’t Hinder Copyright Enforcement
Online piracy is often portrayed as a simple problem. People download or stream something that’s not theirs because they don’t want to pay.
While this may apply in some cases, the reality is much more complex. In fact, over the years research has repeatedly shown that pirates are often the entertainment industry’s best customers.
Today, there are new findings to back this claim up. And to add some weight, they are released by the London-based anti-piracy company MUSO, which works closely with various copyright holders.
The company conducted a survey among 1,000 UK adults, through CitizenMe, to shed more light on how and why pirates consume content the way they do. The findings are noteworthy, to say the least.
Of all the people surveyed the vast majority, 60 percent, admitted that they illegally streamed or downloaded music, film or TV-shows in the past. This could have been yesterday or even two years ago.
Interestingly, the same pirates often try legal sources first. In fact, 83 percent say they usually try to find what they are looking for through official channels before trying anything else. This suggests that most pirates are also legal consumers.
“The entertainment industry tends to envisage piracy audiences as a criminal element, and writes them off as money lost – but they are wrong to do so,” says Paul Briley, CCO of MUSO, commenting on the findings.
“The reality is that the majority of people who have gone through the effort of finding and accessing such unlicensed content are, first and foremost, fans – fans who are more often than not trying to get content legally if they can.”
The problem appears to be that these pirates often can’t find what they’re looking for through their preferred legal channels. The top reasons for people to ‘pirate’ are that content is not available (34.9%), that it’s siloed or difficult to access (34.7%), or that they can’t afford it (35.2%).
MUSO notes that copyright holders should not dismiss the pirate audience as these people are actually engaged and valuable consumers. Instead, the entertainment industries should look for better ways to serve this crowd.
In recent years Hollywood has already made a lot of effort to make content available online. And while Netflix and other streaming services have made a positive impact, they’re not a silver bullet.
MUSO’s survey reveals that 91% of all pirates already have a streaming subscription, such as Netflix, Amazon Prime, Spotify or Apple Music. That’s more than their non-pirating counterparts, of which less than 80% subscribe to one of these services.
The problem is that people sometimes need over a dozen separate subscriptions to access all the content they want. There’s no single service that offers everything in one place. This is one of the main reasons why piracy is still very relevant.
“There is a prevailing myth that streaming services have killed piracy, but unfortunately this just isn’t the case,” Briley notes.
“While streaming services have made huge amounts of content more readily available, it’s still siloed. The results of this survey demonstrate that if the show consumers are looking for isn’t available on their particular on-demand service, they will turn to unlicensed alternatives because it is too expensive to subscribe to every single service.”
MUSO’s previous research has shown that streaming piracy remains on the rise and this trend could continue going forward, for video at least.
It’s also worth mentioning that most pirates know very well that they are not supposed to do so. More than half, 53 percent, said that they think it is wrong to pirate, which is a higher percentage than those who never downloaded or streamed illegally.
While people’s reasons to pirate are clear, the solution is not as straightforward. Simply offering all content under one roof might solve the piracy problem, but it doesn’t automatically mean that more revenue will come in.
The film industry, in particular, relies heavily on complex rights deals, windowed releases, and exclusivity agreements. And with Disney launching its own streaming service, this may only get worse.
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/computerkeyboardfeat.png2501200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2018-06-07 09:40:592018-06-07 09:40:59Pirates Are Valuable Customers, Not The Enemy
In April 2017, San Francisco resident Ross M. Colby was arraigned in U.S. District Federal Court in San Jose following an FBI investigation into alleged hacking offenses.
The 34-year-old was accused of hacking into several local media websites owned by Embarcadero Media Group including the Palo Alto Weekly and the Almanac. He was charged with intentional damage to a computer, attempted damage, and misdemeanor computer intrusion.
According to the indictment, Colby illegally accessed Embarcadero Media email accounts in July 2015. Then, in September 2015, several of the company’s websites were hacked to display the Guy Fawkes image associated with Anonymous. The message “Unbalanced Journalism for profit at the cost of human right. Brought to you by the Almanac” was also left behind.
Facing more than two decades in prison and fines totaling several hundred thousand dollars, Colby pleaded not guilty and was freed on bail. On May 29, 2018, Colby’s trial began in federal court in San Jose. Palo Alto Online has been reporting (1,2) on the case, which has thrown up something of interest to VPN users.
According to evidence provided by FBI Special Agent Anthony Frazier, between July and September 2015, IP addresses operated by VPN provider Private Internet Access (PIA) were used to access email accounts and systems belonging to Embarcadero Media.
A former Colby roommate claims that the pair discussed computer security and frequently had discussions about the use of VPNs. He had even helped Colby set one up, he said. Last Friday, the San Jose Federal Court also heard that Colby told his roommate that he’d hacked a news website for pay.
Also giving testimony was John Allan Arsenault, general counsel for London Trust Media, the owner of Private Internet Access.
According to Almanac News, Arsenault told the Court that some VPN companies, PIA included, do not retain logs of customers’ Internet activities. This means they are unable to produce useful information in response to a subpoena.
Arsenault told the Court that PIA accepts several payment methods, including cryptocurrency, but doesn’t keep records of customers’ names and addresses. The only thing the company holds is the email address used when the customer signs up. There was no record of Ross Colby signing up to PIA with his two known email addresses, Arsenault said.
“We’re limited to search by what the government gives us. Just because we can’t find it doesn’t mean they didn’t use the VPN service,” he said.
“Someone could create a throw-away (email) account to subscribe to us,” he added.
But while PIA could not connect Colby’s IP addresses to any illegal activity, the same could not be said of other companies. Evidence presented to the Court showed that in addition to the PIA addresses that were used to access the Embarcadero Media email accounts, an IP address belonging to Comcast was also used on 20 occasions.
Records provided by Comcast showed that John Colby, Ross Colby’s father and a retired Massachusetts state trooper, was assigned that particular IP address between June 2015 and October 2015, the date of the FBI’s subpoena to Comcast. John Colby further testified that his son stayed with him for about 10 days in July 2015, a period which coincided with the email breaches at Embarcadero Media.
Evidence provided by the FBI also showed that an IP address used by Ross Colby at his home in San Francisco was used to access Embarcadero accounts, as was an IP address registered to a cafe frequently used by Colby.
The case highlights some important points for those interested in Internet security.
The most interesting for privacy advocates is that this is the second time that Private Internet Access’s “no-logging” policy has been tested in court. Such claims are notoriously difficult to prove but PIA has now passed twice with flying colors.
However, the big lesson is that if an Internet crime is serious enough to involve the FBI, IP address evidence will be just part of the equation, with testimony from family and associates playing a major role too.
The final decision on Colby’s plea lies with the jury, which is yet to render its decision.
—
Disclaimer: PIA is one of our sponsors. This article was written completely independently of that fact, as always.
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/court1-featured.jpg00Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2018-06-06 18:39:532018-06-06 18:39:53Private Internet Access’ “No-Logging” Claims Proven True Again in Court
For more than two decades, The Software Alliance (BSA) has supported major software companies such as Adobe, Microsoft, and Symantec in their battle against piracy.
The industry group is involved in legal action and lobbying efforts, but it also keeps an eye on the latest developments in the use of pirated software.
This week BSA published the latest edition of its “Global Software Survey” which reveals the various piracy rates around the world. According to the report there’s good news since software piracy is decreasing.
The survey, which only looks at PC software, shows that piracy rates worldwide dropped to 37 percent in 2017, down from 39 percent two years earlier. The commercial value of the pirated software dropped by 8 percent, to $46.3 billion globally.
While this is a positive sign for the industry, BSA tempers the optimism by pointing out that piracy remains widespread.
“Despite a global two-point drop in unlicensed software installation rates during the last two years, unlicensed software is still being used around the globe at alarming rates, accounting for 37 percent of software installed on personal computers.
“Although the overall commercial value of unlicensed software has also been declining, the majority of all countries in the survey still have unlicensed rates of 50 percent or higher,” BSA notes.
The organization has a point. Looking at the various piracy rates we see enormous differences from country to country.
In the US, for example, ‘only’ 16 percent of software is used without permission, but in other parts of the world, rates are well over 80 percent. In countries where the average consumer has little money to spend, piracy rates are often very high.
This includes many African countries, such as Libya, where 90 percent of all software is used without permission. The same is true for Eastern Europe and Asia, where Armenia, Belarus, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and others have piracy rates above 80 percent.
Piracy rates in the Asia Pacific and Central/Eastern Europe regions
According to BSA, these high piracy rates hinder economic growth. At the same time, they could also subject people to malware risks, as more pirated software is correlated with more malware, the group warns.
“These high rates don’t just delay the local economic benefits that are associated with thriving technology use, they impede growth in a company’s bottom line and induce unprecedented security risks,” BSA notes.
Interestingly, not everyone sees piracy as something inherently bad.
Previously, BSA’s own numbers were used by the African Governance and Development Institute to show that piracy increases literacy and the spread of knowledge.
Similarly, in 2007 Traian Băsescu, Romania’s President at the time, said that piracy actually helped locals to develop computer skills.
“Piracy helped the young generation discover computers. It helped Romanians improve their creative capacity in the IT industry, which has become famous around the world,” he told Bill Gates.
BSA clearly sees things differently. To reduce piracy even further the organization hammers on the security risks, while encouraging governments to modernize laws, facilitate enforcement, and increase public awareness.
—
A copy of The Software Alliance’s latest Global Software Survey is available here (pdf).
On May 4, 2016, Scott Sikes, a Special Agent with the Department of Homeland Security, was engaged in a child abuse investigation.
Acting undercover, Sikes was monitoring a channel on Internet Relay Chat (IRC) when a suspect posted a link. When Sikes opened it he discovered an image of child pornography.
Sikes struck up a one-on-one chat session with the suspect who subsequently posted three more links, each containing the same kind of material. It was later discovered that the suspect had posted 17 other links leading to similar abuse imagery.
Having captured the suspect’s IP address (209.197.26.72), Sikes traced it back to Highwinds Network Group, a cloud storage, CDN, and colocation company that is perhaps best known among file-sharers for its massive Usenet-related business.
Homeland Security followed up by issuing a Summons for Records on Highwinds, demanding that it hand over the details of the user behind that IP address at the times the IRC user posted the links.
Although not directly mentioned by name in court documents, at the time Highwinds owned the VPN provider IPVanish, a company that has repeatedly claimed to carry zero logs relating to its customers’ activities. It appears that the suspect tracked by Homeland Security was an IPVanish customer but any hope he would remain anonymous was soon dismissed.
On May 26, Highwinds responded to the summons, confirming that the IP address belonged to its VPN service. Initially, the company told HSI that to protect customer data, “we do not log any usage information. Therefore, we do not have any information regarding the referenced IP.”
However, after Sikes contacted Highwinds again, the company suggested that HSI submit a second summons requesting more detailed subscriber information.
On June 9, 2016, HSI served a second summons on Highwinds, requesting “any data associated with IRC traffic using IP 209.197.27.72, port 6667.” On June 21, Highwinds came up with the goods.
In a response to HSI, Highwinds provided information which allowed HSI to identify the suspect connecting to the VPN server, connecting to the IRC server, and then disconnecting from the VPN server. Highwinds also handed over the suspect’s name (Vincent Gevirtz), his email address, plus details of his VPN subscription.
Also made available to HSI was Gevirtz’s real IP address (Comcast 50.178.206.161) “as well as dates and times [he] connected to, and disconnected from, the IRC network,” times which coincided with the activity being investigated by HSI.
HSI then issued a summons on Comcast, requesting customer information on the IP address in question. Comcast responded three days later with a slightly different name – Julian Gevirtz – plus an address in Indiana. Vincent Gevirtz was subsequently found at that address with his parents and later admitted to the conduct carried out in the IRC channel. He further admitted to having shared images of abuse online for at least seven years.
While there will be few people disappointed that Gevirtz was tracked down by HSI, there was considerable uproar yesterday when the court documents were posted to the /r/piracy discussion page on Reddit.
IPVanish has always been extremely vocal about its no-logging policies but the court documents in the Gevirtz case appear to show that the company logged extensively, apparently down to what services were accessed and when.
So, with this apparent contradiction in hand, TF contacted StackPath, the company that bought Highwinds and therefore IPVanish back in 2017. How can its “zero logs” policy exist alongside the handing over of so much information?
“We are glad you asked. That lawsuit was from 2016 – long before StackPath acquired IPVanish in 2017,” said Jeremy Palmer, Vice President, Product & Marketing.
“IPVanish does not, has not, and will not log or store logs of our users as a StackPath company. I can’t speak to what happened on someone else’s watch, and that management team is long gone. But know this – in addition to not logging, StackPath will defend the privacy of our users, regardless of who demands otherwise.”
It’s pretty clear from this statement that StackPath doesn’t want to get into what went before and at least to a degree, that’s understandable. That being said, these things must have some kind of paper trail – logs if you like – that document what went on and who was responsible. So we asked again, this time tacking on some more questions to try and nail things down.
We began by asking about the general logging policies of IPVanish before StackPath took over. Clearly, if the old policy was to log (as the court papers suggest), at some point StackPath must’ve seen those policies and realized they were incompatible with their new approach to privacy. If that was the case, what were the old policies and when were they revised to StackPath standards?
“I can’t speak on behalf of the former executive or legal team (involved in this issue) as they are no longer part of Highwinds Network Group, and haven’t been since the acquisition,” Palmer reiterated.
“It’s impossible for me to speculate or comment about what may have happened under different ownership/management. We don’t keep VPN logs [now]. We value our customer’s privacy above everything else.”
The problem here is that at least as far as the IPVanish privacy statements go, the old policies are exactly the same as the new ones – no logs. Clearly, something has to give. At this point, Palmer provided us with a statement from StackPath CEO Lance Crosby.
Crosby is an industry heavyweight, there is little doubt about that. Founder, CEO and Chairman of Softlayer until its sale to IBM in 2013, Crosby was also former COO of ThePlanet. He doesn’t offer any clear proof but says that the HSI case could’ve been a one-off.
“At the time of the acquisition 2/6/17, the StackPath team and a third party performed due diligence on the platform. No logs existed, no logging systems existed and no previous/current/future intent to save logs existed,” Crosby says.
“The same is true today. We can only surmise, this was a one time directed order from authorities. We cannot find any history of logging at any level. Your privacy is paramount and we will fight any persons or government agencies seeking to infringe upon such.
“I can’t speak to what happened on someone else’s watch but Technology is my life and I’ve spent my career helping customers build on and use the Internet on their terms. StackPath takes that even further — security and privacy is our core mission. I also happen to be a lawyer and I will spend my last breath protecting individuals’ rights to privacy, especially our customers,” he concludes.
While having Crosby’s word on a no-logging future carries weight, we are sadly no closer to finding out what happened back in 2016. There is no mention in the court documents of the one-time logging scenario outlined above although that is certainly possible. The big question of whether it could happen again is up for debate.
Moving forward, IPVanish says it is committed to its ‘no-logging’ policy and says that the difference today is a “completely different management team” and a CEO who is “a strong privacy advocate” who “built StackPath on this foundation.”
IPVanish is the latest high-profile VPN to have provided information to the authorities after earlier claiming security for their users. Back in 2011, HideMyAss handed over information that would help to jail LulzSec hacker Cody Kretsinger. Last year it was revealed that PureVPN helped the FBI catch a cyberstalker.
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/privacy-featured.jpg2501200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2018-06-05 12:37:522018-06-05 12:37:52IPVanish “No-Logging” VPN Led Homeland Security to Comcast User
September 2016, the European Commission published its proposal for a modernized copyright law. Among other things, it proposed measures to require online services to do more to fight piracy.
Specifically, Article 13 of the proposed Copyright Directive will require online services to track down and delete pirated content, in collaboration with rightsholders.
The Commission stressed that the changes are needed to support copyright holders. However, many legal scholars, digital activists, politicians, and members of the public worry that they will violate the rights of regular Internet users.
Last month the EU Council finalized the latest version of the proposal. This means that the matter now goes to the Legal Affairs Committee of the Parliament (JURI), which must decide how to move ahead. This vote is expected to take place in two weeks.
Although the term “filter” is commonly used to describe Article 13, it is not directly mentioned in the text itself.
According to Pirate Party Member of Parliament (MEP) Julia Reda, the “filter” keyword is avoided in the proposal to prevent a possible violation of EU law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, the outcome is essentially the same.
In short, the relevant text states that online services are liable for any uploaded content unless they take “effective and proportionate” action to prevent copyright infringements, identified by copyright holders. That also includes preventing these files from being reuploaded.
The latter implies some form of hash filtering and continuous monitoring of all user uploads. Several companies, including Google Drive, Dropbox, and YouTube already have these types of filters, but many others don’t.
A main point of critique is that the automated upload checks will lead to overblocking, as they are often ill-equipped to deal with issues such as fair use.
“The proposal would require platforms to filter all uploads by their users for potential copyright infringements – not just YouTube and Facebook, but also services like WordPress, TripAdvisor, or even Tinder. We know from experience that these algorithmic filters regularly make mistakes and lead to the mass deletion of legal uploads,” Julia Reda tells TF.
“Especially small independent creators frequently see their content taken down because others wrongfully claim copyright on their works. There are no safeguards in the proposal against such cases of copyfraud.”
Besides affecting uploads of regular Internet users and smaller creators, many businesses will also be ‘hit’. They will have to make sure that they can detect and prevent infringing material from being shared on their systems.
This will give larger American Internet giants, who already have these filters in place, a competitive edge over smaller players and new startups, the Pirate Party MEP argues.
“It will make those Internet giants even stronger, because they will be the only ones able to develop and sell the filtering technologies necessary to comply with the law. A true lose-lose situation for European Internet users, authors and businesses,” Reda tells us.
Based on the considerable protests in recent days, the current proposal is still seen as a clear threat by many.
Tell your MEP…
In fact, the “Save your Internet” campaign, backed by prominent organizations such as Creative Commons, EFF, and Open Media, is ramping up again. They urge the European public to reach out to their Members of Parliament before it’s too late.
“Should Article 13 of the Copyright Directive proposal be adopted, it will impose widespread censorship of all the content you share online. The European Parliament is the only one that can step in and Save your Internet,” they write.
The full Article 13 text includes some language to limit its scope. The nature and size of online services must be taken into account, for example. This means that a small and legitimate niche service with a few dozen users might not be directly liable if it operates without these anti-piracy measures.
Similarly, non-profit organizations will not be required to comply with the proposed legislation, although there are calls from some member states to change this.
In addition to Article 13, there is also considerable pushback from the public against Article 11, which is regularly referred to as the “link tax.”
At the moment, several organizations are planning a protest day next week, hoping to mobilize the public to speak out. A week later, following the JURI vote, it will be ‘judgment day.’
If they pass the Committee the plans will progress towards the final vote on copyright reform next Spring. This also means that they’ll become much harder to stop or change. That has been done before, such as with ACTA, but achieving that type of momentum will be a tough challenge.
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/europe-featured.jpg2501200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2018-06-04 21:36:572018-06-04 21:36:57Judgment Day Nears for EU’s ‘Piracy Filters’
Back in March and just a few hours before the Anthony Joshua v Joseph Parker fight, I got chatting with some fellow fans in the local pub. While some were intending to pay for the fight, others were going down the Kodi route.
Soon after the conversation switched to IPTV. One of the guys had a subscription and he said that his supplier would be along shortly if anyone wanted a package to watch the fight at home. Of course, I was curious to hear what he had to say since it’s not often this kind of thing is offered ‘offline’.
The guy revealed that he sold more or less exclusively on eBay and called up the page on his phone to show me. The listing made interesting reading.
In common with hundreds of similar IPTV subscription offers easily findable on eBay, the listing offered “All the sports and films you need plus VOD and main UK channels” for the sum of just under £60 per year, which is fairly cheap in the current market. With a non-committal “hmmm” I asked a bit more about the guy’s business and surprisingly he was happy to provide some details.
Like many people offering such packages, the guy was a reseller of someone else’s product. He also insisted that selling access to copyrighted content is OK because it sits in a “gray area”. It’s also easy to keep listings up on eBay, he assured me, as long as a few simple rules are adhered to. Right, this should be interesting.
First of all, sellers shouldn’t be “too obvious” he advised, noting that individual channels or channel lists shouldn’t be listed on the site. Fair enough, but then he said the most important thing of all is to have a disclaimer like his in any listing, written as follows:
“PLEASE NOTE EBAY: THIS IS NOT A DE SCRAMBLER SERVICE, I AM NOT SELLING ANY ILLEGAL CHANNELS OR CHANNEL LISTS NOR DO I REPRESENT ANY MEDIA COMPANY NOR HAVE ACCESS TO ANY OF THEIR CONTENTS. NO TRADEMARK HAS BEEN INFRINGED. DO NOT REMOVE LISTING AS IT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH EBAY POLICIES.”
Apparently, this paragraph is crucial to keeping listings up on eBay and is the equivalent of kryptonite when it comes to deflecting copyright holders, police, and Trading Standards. Sure enough, a few seconds with Google reveals the same wording on dozens of eBay listings and those offering IPTV subscriptions on external platforms.
It is, of course, absolutely worthless but the IPTV seller insisted otherwise, noting he’d sold “thousands” of subscriptions through eBay without any problems. While a similar logic can be applied to garlic and vampires, a second disclaimer found on many other illicit IPTV subscription listings treads an even more bizarre path.
“THE PRODUCTS OFFERED CAN NOT BE USED TO DESCRAMBLE OR OTHERWISE ENABLE ACCESS TO CABLE OR SATELLITE TELEVISION PROGRAMS THAT BYPASSES PAYMENT TO THE SERVICE PROVIDER. RECEIVING SUBSCRIPTION/BASED TV AIRTIME IS ILLEGAL WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT.”
This disclaimer (which apparently no sellers displaying it have ever read) seems to be have been culled from the Zgemma site, which advertises a receiving device which can technically receive pirate IPTV services but wasn’t designed for the purpose. In that context, the disclaimer makes sense but when applied to dedicated pirate IPTV subscriptions, it’s absolutely ridiculous.
It’s unclear why so many sellers on eBay, Gumtree, Craigslist and other platforms think that these disclaimers are useful. It leads one to the likely conclusion that these aren’t hardcore pirates at all but regular people simply out to make a bit of extra cash who have received bad advice.
What is clear, however, is that selling access to thousands of otherwise subscription channels without permission from copyright owners is definitely illegal in the EU. The European Court of Justice says so (1,2) and it’s been backed up by subsequent cases in the Netherlands.
While the odds of getting criminally prosecuted or sued for reselling such a service are relatively slim, it’s worrying that in 2018 people still believe that doing so is made legal by the inclusion of a paragraph of text. It’s even more worrying that these individuals apparently have no idea of the serious consequences should they become singled out for legal action.
Even more surprisingly, TorrentFreak spoke with a handful of IPTV suppliers higher up the chain who also told us that what they are doing is legal. A couple claimed to be protected by communication intermediary laws, others didn’t want to go into details. Most stopped responding to emails on the topic. Perhaps most tellingly, none wanted to go on the record.
The big take-home here is that following some important EU rulings, knowingly linking to copyrighted content for profit is nearly always illegal in Europe and leaves people open for targeting by copyright holders and the authorities. People really should be aware of that, especially the little guy making a little extra pocket money on eBay.
Of course, people are perfectly entitled to carry on regardless and test the limits of the law when things go wrong. At this point, however, it’s probably worth noting that IPTV provider Ace Hosting recently handed over £600,000 rather than fight the Premier League (1,2) when they clearly had the money to put up a defense.
Given their effectiveness, perhaps they should’ve put up a disclaimer instead?
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/warning-1.jpg2911200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2018-06-04 06:35:572018-06-04 06:35:57When Joe Public Becomes a Commercial Pirate, a Little Knowledge is Dangerous
Following a series of High Court orders handed down in recent years, the UK’s major ISPs are required to block access to dozens of the world’s most popular ‘pirate’ sites.
Over time the number of blocked URLs has expanded to well over 1,000, with popular torrent, streaming, and direct download sites being the main targets.
Many of these URLs are proxies and mirrors. These come and go and the High Court permits copyright holders to expand the blocklists with these domains, provided that they are alternative ways to reach already blocked websites.
In the past, we have regularly covered this whack-a-mole and one issue has repeatedly came to the forefront. There is very little transparency. There doesn’t appear to be a master list of blocked domains and ISPs all block different URLs, which has turned into a bit of a mess.
This prompted the Open Rights Group to see if they could bring some order to the chaos, hoping to establish a definite list of blocked sites, or something close to that at least. Their findings show that there is plenty of room for improvement.
“We were concerned by TorrentFreak reporting on the scale of the blocking due to copyright blocking,” Jim Killock, director of the Open Rights Group (ORG), tells us.
“When we looked at what was blocked, it was clear that the lists of blocks were wildly inaccurate. The lists for each ISP were different, so it was obvious that there were going to be a lot of mistakes. So we wanted to find out exactly what kind of errors they are.”
This quest to determine which sites are blocked by court order, and how many of these were returning errors, took months to complete. This week ORG is ready to present the results to the public and by their standards, the word “mess” is warranted.
As can be seen below, the group found 1,071 blocked URLs of which more than a third (412) are ‘incorrectly’ blocked by at least one Internet provider. This includes sites which no longer exist, are inactive, for sale, or point to entirely different content.
Legal block errors
While many of these sites no longer link to infringing content, they are still blocked. While there’s little harm in blocking a site that no longer exists, ORG is mainly worried about the apparent lack of transparency and oversight.
Some sites also appear to be blocked as collateral damage, because a proxy site links to both blocked and non blocked sites for example, ORG explains.
“There are a number of blocks which are simply inexplicable. Some of these may be due to blocks being placed on proxies, and blocking everything the proxy tool unblocks, whether subject to an injunction or not.”
“The fact that about a quarter of the blocks are incorrect should send alarm bells. This legal process is both opaque and poorly administered,” Killock tells us.
The question is whether copyright holders see the “errors” which ORG reports as a problem. They may argue that a site may return to its pirate habits, even though it’s inactive, and that a block is therefore warranted.
Still, the fact that the blockades differ from ISP to ISP and that it’s unknown which sites are supposed to be blocked, is messy.
Several ISPs expand their blocklists with new domains on a monthly basis. At the same time, other domains are removed. This explains why BT has 100 errors, and Virgin Media as many as 288.
Couchtuner.es, for example, no longer links to anything remotely related to Couchtuner. Several ISPs no longer block the site, but TalkTalk still does, referencing a court order. While the site now appears to sell suspiciously cheap Tod’s shoes, that’s not part of any injunction.
ORG hopes that the courts will allow for more transparency to address this issue. Publishing an updated list of all sites that are supposed to be on the list is a good start, they believe.
“Courts could insist that ISPs publish a list of everything that is being blocked. This would be the failsafe means to ensure that blocking is correct. Other steps could be to publish a list of everything that has been unblocked. This would at least let people check that unblocking actually is implemented,” Killock says.
In addition, the group plans to share its findings with the relevant Internet providers so they can take action if needed. By correcting errors, for example, or sharing more details on what sites they block.
Finally, ORG plans to publish all of the court documentation in relation to the UK blocklist. To do so, they require some funding and have just started a campaign, asking the public to help out.
“Please help us make UK court orders transparent and accountable,” a message on the site reads, noting that it needs £5,000 in support.
People who are interested in the findings can take a look at the blocked site reports on ORG’s website. The list may not be fully complete and will be updated continuously.
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/roadblock-blocked-feat.jpg2501200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2018-06-03 15:35:162018-06-03 15:35:16UK Pirate Site Blocks are “Opaque and Poorly Administered”
When it comes to the link between piracy and sales, there are thousands of different opinions. This applies to music, movies, software and many other digital products, including ebooks.
Although there is no definite or universal answer we can give, piracy is certainly an easy scapegoat. This is what novelist and “Fight Club” author Chuck Palahniuk found out first hand.
When his income started to dwindle, online piracy was often mentioned as one of the culprits. People were copying books without paying – ‘stealing’ from authors – so that seemed plausible.
“For several years my income has dwindled. Piracy, some people told me. Or the publishers were in crisis and slow to pay royalties, although the publishers insisted they’d sent the money,” Palahniuk wrote this week.
However, the article in question was not another piracy rant. Quite the opposite. It was actually an apology for the previous times he blamed online pirates and his publishers for the significant drop in revenue.
As it turns out someone was stealing ‘for real.’ Not by sharing copies of books, but by messing with royalties, as the New York post explains in detail.
The alleged mastermind is Darin Webb, an accountant who’s accused of embezzling millions of dollars from the prestigious literary agency Donadio & Olson. Webb was indicted by the US Government and confessed his wrongdoings in a video interview, according to the complaint.
One of the secondary victims of the scheme was Palahniuk, who finally found an explanation for his dwindling income. And it was closer to home than he could have imagined.
The main suspect, who now faces 20 years in jail, is the same person who forwarded his mail.
“If you’ve written to me chances are that your letter passed through the hands of the accused. He’d collect the mail and forward it to me. He seemed like a good guy. Like a prince of a guy. Like man-crush material. And then he wasn’t.”
The ‘plus’ side of the revelation is that Palahniuk has his explanation. However, it does come at an expense, as the author is close to going broke. Also, he regrets putting the blame onto others and apologizes for his previous piracy rants.
“So on the minus side, I apologize for cursing my publishers. And I apologize for any rants about piracy. My publishers had paid the royalties. Piracy, when it existed, was small scale.
“I do hereby humbly apologize,” Palahniuk concludes.
For the past several years, Russia has been attempting to censor the Internet by restricting access to a large range of sites. With thousands blocked, pirate sites are some of the main targets but any site with content objectionable to the state can find itself in the crosshairs.
Online piracy is often portrayed as a simple problem. People download or stream something that’s not theirs because they don’t want to pay. 
For more than two decades, The Software Alliance (
September 2016, the European Commission published its 
Following a series of High Court orders handed down in recent years, the UK’s major ISPs are required to block access to dozens of the world’s most popular ‘pirate’ sites.
When it comes to the link between piracy and sales, there are thousands of different opinions. This applies to music, movies, software and many other digital products, including ebooks.
