Those responsible sent out an email to reporters, announcing the prominent breach, and leaked files surfaced on the dedicated website Winter-leak.com.

While the latter is no longer accessible, the hackers are not done yet. Another curated batch of leaked files has now appeared online, revealing more Game of Thrones spoilers, marketing plans, and other confidential HBO files.

The first leak put a preliminary outline of the fourth episode of the current Game of Thrones season in the spotlight, and the second batch follows up with the same for the upcoming fifth episode.

Although the outline was prepared over a year ago, it likely contains various accurate spoilers, which we won’t repeat here.

Preliminary outline S07E05

The new data dump, which is a subsection of the 1.5 terabytes of data the hackers claimed to have in their possession, also lists a variety of other Game of Thrones related files.

Among other items, there’s a confidential cast list for the current season, a highly confidential “Game of Ideas” brief, an outline of GoT marketing strategies, and a Game of Thrones roadmap. The information all appears to be a few months old.

The hackers took a screenshot of several folders, where the files may have been taken from, as seen below.

Folders screenshot

In addition, the hackers provided ‘proof’ that they have emails, which according to AP point to HBO’s vice president for film programming Leslie Cohen.

Finally, the new batch contains a video letter to HBO CEO Richard Plepler, titled “First letter to HBO,” where a certain Mr. Smith takes credit for the hack. The letter offered to keep the information away from the public, in exchange for a ransom payment.

First letter to HBO

For spoiler-eager Game of Thrones fans the hack is a true treasure trove. However, like the first batch, no leaked episodes are included. And, based on another screenshot, these are probably not on the way either.

A “Series Screenshot” includes a list of likely compromised titles, such as The Deviant Ones and the previously leaked Barry, Ballers, and Room 104, but no Game of Thrones.

A leak of the fourth GoT episode did appear online late last week, but this wasn’t linked to the breach of HBO’s network. Still, HBO is likely not amused and will do everything in its power to catch those responsible.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.





Source link


Under US law, providers have to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers “in appropriate circumstances” and increasingly they are being held to this standard.

Earlier this year several major record labels, represented by the RIAA, filed a lawsuit in a Texas District Court, accusing ISP Grande Communications of failing to take action against its pirating subscribers.

The ISP is not happy with the claims and was quick to submit a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. One of the arguments is that the RIAA’s evidence is insufficient.

In its original motion, Grande doesn’t deny receiving millions of takedown notices from piracy tracking company Rightscorp. However, it believes that these notices are flawed as Rightscorp is incapable of monitoring actual copyright infringements.

The RIAA disagreed and pointed out that their evidence is sufficient. They stressed that Rightcorp is able to monitor actual downloads, as opposed to simply checking if a subscriber is offering certain infringing content.

In a response from Grande, late last week, the ISP argues that this isn’t good enough to build a case. While Rightcorp may be able to track the actual infringing downloads to which the RIAA labels hold the copyrights, there is no such evidence provided in the present case, the ISP notes.

“Importantly, Plaintiffs do not allege that Rightscorp has ever recorded an instance of a Grande subscriber actually distributing even one of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works. Plaintiffs certainly have not alleged any concrete facts regarding such an act,” Grande’s legal team writes (pdf).

According to the ISP, the RIAA’s evidence merely shows that Rightscorp sent notices of alleged infringements on behalf of other copyright holders, who are not involved in the lawsuit.

“Instead, Plaintiffs generally allege that Rightscorp has sent notices regarding ‘various copyrighted works,’ encompassing all of the notices sent by Rightscorp on behalf of entities other than Plaintiffs.”

While the RIAA argues that this circumstantial evidence is sufficient, the ISP believes that there are grounds to have the entire case dismissed.

The record labels can’t hold Grande liable for secondary copyright infringement, without providing concrete evidence that their works were actively distributed by Grande subscribers, the company claims.

“Plaintiffs cannot allege direct infringement without alleging concrete facts which show that a Grande subscriber actually infringed one of Plaintiffs’ copyrights,” Grande’s lawyers note.

“For this reason, it is incredibly misleading for Plaintiffs to repeatedly refer to Grande having received ‘millions’ of notices of alleged infringement, as if those notices all pertained to Plaintiffs’ asserted copyrights.”

The “misleading” copyright infringement evidence argument is only one part of the ISPs defense. The company also notes that it has no control over what its subscribers do, nor do they control the BitTorrent clients that were allegedly used to download content.

If the court ruled otherwise, Grande and other ISPs would essentially be forced to become an “unpaid enforcement agent of the recording industry,” the company’s lawyers note.

The RIAA, however, sees things quite differently.

The music industry group believes that Grande failed to take proper action in response to repeat infringers and should pay damages to compensate the labels. This claim is very similar to the one BMG brought against Cox, where the latter was eventually ordered to pay $25 million.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.





Source link


The shadowy nature of this global business means that its true scale will never be known but due to the controversial activities of some of the larger players, it’s occasionally possible to take a peek inside their operations. One such opportunity has just raised its head.

According to a lawsuit filed in California, James Davis is an attorney licensed in Oregon and California. Until two years ago, he was largely focused on immigration law. However, during March 2015, Davis says he was approached by an old classmate with an opportunity to get involved in a new line of business.

That classmate was Oregon lawyer Carl Crowell, who over the past several years has been deeply involved in copyright-trolling cases, including a deluge of Dallas Buyers Club and London Has Fallen litigation. He envisioned a place for Davis in the business.

Davis seemed to find the proposals attractive and became seriously involved in the operation, filing 58 cases on behalf of the companies involved. In common with similar cases, the lawsuits were brought in the name of the entities behind each copyrighted work, such as Dallas Buyers Club, LLC and LHF Productions, Inc.

In time, however, things started to go wrong. Davis claims that he discovered that Crowell, in connection with and on behalf of the other named defendants, “misrepresented the true nature of the Copyright Litigation Campaign, including the ownership of the works at issue and the role of the various third-parties involved in the litigation.”

Davis says that Crowell and the other defendants (which include the infamous Germany-based troll outfit Guardaley) made false representations to secure his participation, while holding back other information that might have made him think twice about becoming involved.

“Crowell and other Defendants withheld numerous material facts that were known to Crowell and the knowledge of which would have cast doubt on the value and ethical propriety of the Copyright Litigation Campaign for Mr. Davis,” the lawsuit reads.

Davis goes on to allege serious misconduct, including that representations regarding ownership of various entities were false and used to deceive him into participating in the scheme.

As time went on, Davis said he had increasing doubts about the operation. Then, in August 2016 as a result of a case underway in California, he began asking questions which resulted in him uncovering additional facts. These undermined both the representations of the people he was working for and his own belief in the “value and ethical propriety of the Copyright Litigation Campaign,” the lawsuit claims.

Davis said this spurred him on to “aggressively seek further information” from Crowell and other people involved in the scheme, including details of its structure and underlying support. He says all he received were “limited responses, excuses, and delays.”

The case was later dismissed by mutual agreement of the parties involved but of course, Davis’ concerns about the underlying case didn’t come to the forefront until the filing of his suit against Crowell and the others.

Davis says that following a meeting in Santa Monica with several of the main players behind the litigation campaign, he decided its legal and factual basis were unsound. He later told Crowell and Guardaley that he was withdrawing from their project.

As the result of the misrepresentations made to him, Davis is now suing the defendants on a number of counts, detailed below.

“Defendants’ business practices are unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent. Davis has suffered monetary damage as a direct result of the unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices set forth herein,” the lawsuit reads.

Requesting a trial by jury, Davis is seeking actual damages, statutory damages, punitive or treble damages “in the amount of no less than $300,000.”

While a payment of that not insignificant amount would clearly satisfy Davis, the prospect of a trial in which the Guardaley operation is laid bare would be preferable when the interests of its thousands of previous targets are considered.

Only time will tell how things will pan out but like the vast majority of troll cases, this one too seems destined to be settled in private, to ensure the settlement machine keeps going.

Note: The case was originally filed in June, only to be voluntarily dismissed. It has now been refiled in state court.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.





Source link


Next we have Arpit’s work upgrading Kodi’s add-on backend from Python2 to Python3

Python3 Support – arpitn30

My initial proposal was to support both Python2 and Python3 in Kodi by maintaining two versions of the same libraries and calling the required one depending upon the meta information in the XML files of the add-ons.

JUNE

During the first week of June, I was mostly understanding how everything was being built and what needs to be changed. I initially thought of updating the input to swig so that it can output python3, but I realised that Swig only changed the code to generic ML code which was given as an input to Groovy which with the help of Python Templates outputs Python code. So I cloned the Python templates directory and in the later weeks, I started to study and gradually change the python templates to that of Python3.

Aside from the major unicode string change, Python 3 changed a lot of things at the base level that drastically affected the Python-C API which was used to build the templates. So I went through each and every function and decided if it should return a unicode object or a byte object. I changed all the Python API function names, the module initialization, the Py_TPFLAGS, and changed the char data type in C to wchar data type. I also looked at all the data type which were being converted from C to Python and Python to C and inspected if any changes to data types in Python 3 like ‘map’ returning and iterable instead of lists and also changed the PyInt type which was no longer being used in Python3 API.

During the mid of June, when I started working to support both versions of Python, I was told to test if my code supported was even working with Python3 or not. So I forked my current working branch into 2 branches, one to test if my Python3 templates work correctly (testpy3) and the other to support both Python 2 and 3 (build2n3) and was working on them simultaneously. I also updated the HttpNetworkHandlers to Python3.

In Build2n3 branch, I changed paths of the Python libraries to the new Python3 directory, updated the Cmake files to download dependencies for both and keep them seperate.

In testpy3 branch, my main focus was to run the environment with as minimal changes as possible. So I removed 2 python template directories and made python3 the main directory. I had to change all the cmake files though to the updated dependency structure. After all the kinks had been removed Kodi was able to run with Python3 at the end of Phase 1 but the add-ons weren’t working yet.

JULY

The first thing I needed to do after the end of Phase 1 was to get the Python3 version of Kodi working, so that I could know if my code was working or not. The major trouble was that there wasn’t any way to know the error except the for only Log Entry of PythonModules not found. I skimmed through each and every documentation to figure out the changes which were made and the difference between them.

I found that the threads and GIL in Python3 are implemented differently than Python2. The acquirelock and releaselock functions are now deprecated and had to be changed with acquirethread which needed to have a saved state beforehand.

But the problem about the threads was still not solved. After a lot of testing and help from Paxxi and Rechi, we were able to identify the problem which was due to the duplication of state of _PyThreadState_current by Kodi and Python Bindings which resulted in the thread state being lost mid execution and we solved the problem by changing the cmake file in templates and adding the python binding directly to the xbmc core library.

After that, I started working on Build2n3 branch to apply the changes which were done in testpy3 branch and to figure out if it was possible to create two versions of libraries with the different implementation of threads even though it meant building Kodi twice while I was still looking into the ModuleNotFound error in the other branch which was still not resolved.

So I started working on Build2n3 branch. The problem I was having was with the env variables like PythonLibs and Python_include_dirs which can be only set to one of the versions at a time so we had to unset the variables after they were used and set them to the python3 directory. 

The main point now was if it was practical to go for a version that supports both Python 2 and 3 or skip a version and release just a python3 version whle giving the developers time to port. Changing a major amount of code just to support Python 2 and 3 only to revert it back to the current code one or two versions later seemed impractical if not impossible due to changing the implementation of handling of threads. Taking in account the time it took, just to find the bug and get just the Python3 version right, Razze asked me to focus on just Python3 version for now.

So going back to testpy3 branch, after searching for several days, we found out that the function which initialized the modules did not add it to the built-in modules in Python3 which wasn’t mentioned in most of the Python3 Porting guides. So we added statements to explicitly add it to built-in modules. And finally the ModuleNotFound error was gone.

After fixing a few bugs like correcting the charset conversion to wchar, updating the execution script, Python 3 Kodi was finally working with the built-on Kodi libraries being perfectly imported. 

In the next week, I checked the best way to make Kodi add-ons compatible with both versions of Python either by using __future__ packages or by using sys.major_version condition and I decided to go with the latter. I also made the versioncheck addon compatible with Python3 and added a pr to it. The addon was working perfectly with current version of Kodi as well as the Python3 version of Kodi.

Lastly, I decided to update the Python3 branch with the changes which were later made in the templates while working to support just Python3. So if we decide to go for a version to support both Python2 and 3, we can just fork from there. 

I also added the PyFile function into Kodi itself thus removing the dependency on Py3c fileshim.h.

I also tested the debug and release versions of Python3 Kodi on Windows 64 bit and it worked without any problems.

The Future

I’ve tested my code with Ubuntu using the natively installed packages and it seems to work. And after a few days, I’ve been able to build the master branch in Linux using the target packages only. I intend to finish updating the files for target version for Posix systems by the end of next week. I will port some of the add-ons to Python3 later on, and I need some time to clean up the code as well. Although I removed the commented code which I left behind from Python2, I still have to give it a final review before submitting my code. 





Source link


stslogo180

In this episode, we meet Dan Hassan, a very early Bitcoin enthusiast who’s taking a different approach to making use of his cryptocurrency wealth. Instead of moving to Silicon Valley, buying a Tesla and funding dubious startups, Dan’s helping activists and progressives find their feet in crypto.

His aim is to create an extended gang of independently wealthy individuals who can dedicate themselves to disruption and the building of radical, new social alternatives. What could be more STEAL THIS SHOW?

*Please note, although we did manage to screw some crypto tips out of Dan, nothing in this show is to intended as financial advice. These are weird times. Literally no one can predict what’s going to happen!

Steal This Show aims to release bi-weekly episodes featuring insiders discussing copyright and file-sharing news. It complements our regular reporting by adding more room for opinion, commentary, and analysis.

The guests for our news discussions will vary, and we’ll aim to introduce voices from different backgrounds and persuasions. In addition to news, STS will also produce features interviewing some of the great innovators and minds.

Host: Jamie King

Guest: Robert Barat and Rob Vincent

Produced by Jamie King
Edited & Mixed by Riley Byrne
Original Music by David Triana
Web Production by Siraje Amarniss

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.





Source link


Sellers of CCTV equipment, for example, would have us believe that criminals don’t want to be photographed and will often go elsewhere in the face of that. Car alarm companies warn us that since X thousand cars are stolen every minute, an expensive Immobilizer is an anti-theft must.

Of course, they’re absolutely right to point these things out. People want to know about these offline risks since they affect our quality of life. The same can be said of those that occur in the online world too.

We ARE all at risk of horrible malware that will trash our computers and steal our banking information so we should all be running adequate protection. That being said, how many times do our anti-virus programs actually trap a piece of nasty-ware in a year? Once? Twice? Ten times? Almost never?

The truth is we all need to be informed but it should be done in a measured way. That’s why an article just published by security firm ESET on the subject of torrents strikes a couple of bad chords, particularly with people who like torrents. It’s titled “Why you should view torrents as a threat” and predictably proceeds to outline why.

“Despite their popularity among users, torrents are very risky ‘business’,” it begins.

“Apart from the obvious legal trouble you could face for violating the copyright of musicians, filmmakers or software developers, there are security issues linked to downloading them that could put you or your computer in the crosshairs of the black hats.”

Aside from the use of the phrase “very risky” (‘some risk’ is a better description), there’s probably very little to complain about in this opening shot. However, things soon go downhill.

“Merely downloading the newest version of BitTorrent clients – software necessary for any user who wants to download or seed files from this ‘ecosystem’ – could infect your machine and irreversibly damage your files,” ESET writes.

Following that scary statement, some readers will have already vowed never to use a torrent again and moved on without reading any more, but the details are really important.

To support its claim, ESET points to two incidents in 2016 (which to its great credit the company actually discovered) which involved the Transmission torrent client. Both involved deliberate third-party infection and in the latter hackers attacked Transmission’s servers and embedded malware in its OSX client before distribution to the public.

No doubt these were both miserable incidents (to which the Transmission team quickly responded) but to characterize this as a torrent client problem seems somewhat unfair.

People intent on spreading viruses and malware do not discriminate and will happily infect ANY piece of computer software they can. Sadly, many non-technical people reading the ESET post won’t read beyond the claim that installing torrent clients can “infect your machine and irreversibly damage your files.”

That’s a huge disservice to the hundreds of millions of torrent client installations that have taken place over a decade and a half and were absolutely trouble free. On a similar basis, we could argue that installing Windows is the main initial problem for people getting viruses from the Internet. It’s true but it’s also not the full picture.

Finally, the piece goes on to detail other incidents over the years where torrents have been found to contain malware. The several cases highlighted by ESET are both real and pretty unpleasant for victims but the important thing to note here is torrent users are no different to any other online user, no matter how they use the Internet.

People who download files from the Internet, from ALL untrusted sources, are putting themselves at risk of getting a virus or other malware. Whether that content is obtained from a website or a P2P network, the risks are ever-present and only a foolish person would do so without decent security software (such as ESET’s) protecting them.

The take home point here is to be aware of security risks and put them into perspective. It’s hard to put a percentage on these things but of the hundreds of millions of torrent and torrent client downloads that have taken place since their inception 15 years ago, the overwhelming majority have been absolutely fine.

Security situations do arise and we need to be aware of them, but presenting things in a way that spreads unnecessary concern in a particular sector isn’t necessary to sell products.

The AV-TEST Institute registers around 390,000 new malicious programs every day that don’t involve torrents, plenty for any anti-virus firm to deal with.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.





Source link


kickasstorrents_500x500

Polish authorities acted on a criminal complaint from the US Government, which accused Vaulin of criminal copyright infringement and money laundering.

While Vaulin is still awaiting the final decision in his extradition process in Poland, his US counsel tried to have the entire case thrown out with a motion to dismiss submitted to the Illinois District Court late last year.

One of the fundamental flaws of the case, according to the defense, is that torrent files themselves are not copyrighted content. In addition, they argued that any secondary copyright infringement claims would fail as these are non-existent under criminal law.

After a series of hearings and a long wait afterwards, US District Judge John Z. Lee has now issued his verdict (pdf).

In a 28-page memorandum and order, the motion to dismiss was denied on various grounds.

The court doesn’t contest that torrent files themselves are not protected content under copyright law. However, this argument ignores the fact that the files are used to download copyrighted material, the order reads.

“This argument, however, misunderstands the indictment. The indictment is not concerned with the mere downloading or distribution of torrent files,” Judge Lee writes.

“Granted, the indictment describes these files and charges Vaulin with operating a website dedicated to hosting and distributing them. But the protected content alleged to have been infringed in the indictment is a number of movies and other copyright protected media that users of Vaulin’s network purportedly downloaded and distributed..,” he adds.

In addition, the defense’s argument that secondary copyright infringement claims are non-existent under criminal law doesn’t hold either, according to the Judge’s decision.

Vaulin’s defense noted that the Government’s theory could expose other search engines, such as Google, to criminal liability. While this is theoretically possible, the court sees distinct differences and doesn’t aim to rule on all search engines in general.

“For present purposes, though, the Court need not decide whether and when a search engine operator might engage in conduct sufficient to constitute aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement. The issue here is whether 18 U.S.C. § 2 applies to 17 U.S.C. § 506. The Court is persuaded that it does,” Judge Lee writes.

Based on these and other conclusions, the motion to dismiss was denied. This means that the case will move forward. The next step will be to see how the Polish court rules on the extradition request.

Vaulin’s lead counsel Ira Rothken is disappointed with the outcome. He stresses that while courts commonly construe indictments in a light most favorable to the government, it went too far in this case.

“Currently a person merely ‘making available’ a file on a network in California wouldn’t even be committing a civil copyright infringement under the ruling in Napster but under today’s ruling that same person doing it in Illinois could be criminally prosecuted by the United States,” Rothken informs TorrentFreak.

“If federal judges disagree on the state of the federal copyright law then people shouldn’t be criminally prosecuted absent clarification by Congress,” he adds.

The defense team is still considering the best options for appeal, and whether they want to go down that road. However, Rothken hopes that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals will address the issue in the future.

“We hope one day that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals will undo this ruling and the chilling effect it will have on internet search engines, user generated content sites, and millions of netizens globally,” Rothken notes.

For now, however, Vaulin’s legal team will likely shift its focus to preventing his extradition to the United States.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.





Source link


BitTorrent itself was still a relatively new technology at the time and users were eager to find new tools to transfer their files. The feature-rich Azureus client, which later rebranded to Vuze, delivered just that.

In recent years, however, things have gone relatively quiet, up to a point where Vuze development appears to have stalled completely. Perhaps not surprising, as two of the core developers, parg and TuxPaper, have left the project and moved on to something new.

“We are no longer involved in Vuze or Azureus Software, Inc. We can not speak to what their intentions are with the development of their product,” they inform us.

The developers, who were also part of the original Azureus team, are not saying farewell to their code though. While they are no longer working on Vuze, the pair have started a new Azureus branch, one they will actively maintain.

“We have invested such a large amount of our lives in the endeavor that we feel the need to keep the open source project active, for both our and our users’ enjoyment!” parg and TuxPaper tell us.

BiglyBT, as they have named their new client, will continue where Vuze development stalled. In addition to optimizing the code and releasing new features, BiglyBT is determined to keep the open source project alive, without any commercial interests.

“Our main goals for BiglyBT is to keep it ad-free and open source, and to continue to develop it into an even better torrent client. We also hope that a community will form again around the product.”

BiglyBT main window (large)

People who try the new client will notice that it’s indeed very similar to Vuze, but without the ads and some other ‘cluttering’ features, such as DVD-burning.

While BiglyBT looks and operates in a similar manner to Vuze, in the future the developers will work on a new set of features, a new style, and various other changes that will set it apart from its older brother.

“Our first release is mostly a name change, but we have removed some of the things that we know users don’t particularly want or use, such as the content network, games promotions, DVD burning, the huge ad in the corner of the app, and the offers in the installer.”

While Vuze appears to have downsized its development efforts, BiglyBT promises to go full steam ahead. The new client will also stay true to the Open Source nature. Previously, some people complained that Vuze included proprietary code, resulting in more restrictive license terms. BiglyBT is purely GPL, and will remain so.

The client is currently available on all major desktop platforms, including Windows, MacOS and Linux. An open source Android app, forked from Vuze remote, will follow in a few weeks.

BiglyBT should appeal to a wide range of users, especially the more seasoned torrent user who wants a client they can configure to their liking.

“Our target users are people who love to delve into the world of torrenting. People who like to tinker and watch torrents do their thing. Hoarders who like to seed, automate, categorize and contribute back to the torrenting community,” the developers note.

People who are interested in giving BiglyBT a spin can download the latest version from the official site. The application is free and won’t install any other applications or adware. Instead, it’s solely supported by donations from the public.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.





Source link


Over the years, many people have argued that access to free music has helped them broaden their musical horizons, dabbling in new genres and discovering new bands. This, they argue, would have been a prohibitively expensive proposition if purchases were forced on a trial and error basis.

Of course, many labels and bands believe that piracy amounts to theft, but some are prepared to put their heads above the parapet with an opinion that doesn’t necessarily tow the party line.

Formed in 1977 in Sheffield, England, rock band Def Leppard have sold more than 100 million records worldwide and have two RIAA diamond certificated albums to their name. But unlike Metallica who have sold a total of 116 million records and were famous for destroying Napster, Def Leppard’s attitude to piracy is entirely more friendly.

In an interview with Ultimate Classic Rock, Def Leppard guitarist Vivian Campbell has been describing why he believes piracy has its upsides, particularly for enduring bands that are still trying to broaden their horizons.

“The way the band works is quite extraordinary. In recent years, we’ve been really fortunate that we’ve seen this new surge in our popularity. For the most part, that’s fueled by younger people coming to the shows,” Campbell said.

“We’ve been seeing it for the last 10, 12 or 15 years, you’d notice younger kids in the audience, but especially in the last couple of years, it’s grown exponentially. I really do believe that this is the upside of music piracy.”

Def Leppard celebrate their 40th anniversary this year, and the fact that they’re still releasing music and attracting a new audience is a real achievement for a band whose original fans only had access to vinyl and cassette tapes. But Campbell says the band isn’t negatively affected by new technology, nor people using it to obtain their content for free.

“You know, people bemoan the fact that you can’t sell records anymore, but for a band like Def Leppard at least, there is a silver lining in the fact that our music is reaching a whole new audience, and that audience is excited to hear it, and they’re coming to the shows. It’s been fantastic,” he said.

While packing out events is every band’s dream, Campbell believes that the enthusiasm these fresh fans bring to the shows is actually helping the band to improve.

“There’s a whole new energy around Leppard, in fact. I think we’re playing better than we ever have. Which you’d like to think anyway. They always say that musicians, unlike athletes, you’re supposed to get better.

“I’m not sure that anyone other than the band really notices, but I notice it and I know that the other guys do too. When I play ‘Rock of Ages’ for the 3,000,000 time, it’s not the song that excites me, it’s the energy from the audience. That’s what really lifts our performance. When you’ve got a more youthful audience coming to your shows, it only goes in one direction,” he concludes.

The thought of hundreds or even thousands of enthusiastic young pirates energizing an aging Def Leppard to the band’s delight is a real novelty. However, with so many channels for music consumption available today, are these new followers necessarily pirates?

One only has to visit Def Leppard’s official YouTube channel to see that despite being born in the late fifties and early sixties, the band are still regularly posting new content to keep fans up to date. So, given the consumption habits of young people these days, YouTube seems a more likely driver of new fans than torrents, for example.

That being said, Def Leppard are still humming along nicely on The Pirate Bay. The site lists a couple of hundred torrents, some uploaded more recently, some many years ago, including full albums, videos, and even entire discographies.

Arrr, we be Def Leppaaaaaard

Interestingly, Campbell hasn’t changed his public opinion on piracy for more than a decade. Back in 2007 he was saying similar things, and in 2011 he admitted that there were plenty of “kids out there” with the entire Def Leppard collection on their iPods.

“I am pretty sure they didn’t all pay for it. But, maybe those same kids will buy a ticket and come to a concert,” he said.

“We do not expect to sell a lot of records, we are just thankful to have people listening to our music. That is more important than having people pay for it. It will monetize itself later down the line.”

With sites like YouTube perhaps driving more traffic to bands like Def Leppard than pure piracy these days (and even diverting people away from piracy itself), it’s interesting to note that there’s still controversy around people getting paid for music.

With torrent sites slowly dropping off the record labels’ hitlists, one is much more likely to hear them criticizing YouTube itself for not giving the industry a fair deal.

Still, bands like Def Leppard seem happy, so it’s not all bad news.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.





Source link


Piracy comes in all shapes and sizes. While record labels regularly see themselves as victims, they can sometimes cross the line as well.

According to HypeForType, which designs, creates, and licenses various custom fonts, this is exactly what record label Universal Music Group did.

The font maker has filed a lawsuit accusing the major label of using its “Nanami Rounded” and “Ebisu Bold” fonts without permission.

The lawsuit centers around fonts used for the logo and merchandise of the popular British band The Vamps. According to a complaint, filed in a New York federal court, Universal failed to obtain a proper license for its use, so they are essentially using pirated fonts.

According to the complaint, designer Stuart Hardie did purchase a basic license in 2013. However, Universal itself hasn’t bought the additional and required license upgrade to use the Nanami Rounded or Ebisu Bold Font Software on a commercial scale.

“Plaintiff requires a license upgrade (‘Special Font License’) for use of its typeface font software in commercial, for-profit usage including, inter alia, on goods for sale,” the complaint reads.

“Upon information and belief, Defendant has used and/or caused others to use unauthorized copies of the Font Software in the creation of The Vamps goods for sale, including, inter alia, clothing, accessories, DVDs, and CDs,” it adds.

HypeForType says that unauthorized use of its font has caused the company significant damages, which it wants to recoup. In addition, the font maker claims any gains and profits Universal made using its fonts.

“At present, the amount of such damages, gains, profits, and advantages cannot be fully ascertained by Plaintiff but are believed to be not less than $1,251,235 together with prejudgment interest and reasonable costs and fees or Statutory Damages under Copyright Law, whichever is greater.”

On top of the damages, HypeForType also requests an injunction preventing Universal, and thus The Vamps, from using the fonts without a proper license. They also want all existing materials, including merchandise, to be destroyed.

While it seems unlikely that The Vamps will stop using their existing logo anytime soon, a substantial settlement might be warranted, if the copyright infringement claims hold up in court. But then again, that’s only fair when you’re ‘stealing’ someone’s work.

—-

A copy of HypeForType’s complaint is available here (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.





Source link