In the months leading up to the now infamous raid on Kim Dotcom’s New Zealand mansion and his cloud storage site Megaupload, the entrepreneur and his associates were under surveillance.
Between December 2011 and March 2012, New Zealand authorities used the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) spy agency to snoop on the private communications of Kim and former wife Mona Dotcom, plus Megaupload co-defendant Bram van der Kolk.
Since the GCSB is forbidden from conducting surveillance on New Zealand citizens or permanent residents in the country, the spying carried out against Dotcom was illegal. The GCSB admitted liability and will at some point pay damages, but Dotcom also demanded access to the recordings.
In 2017, however, the High Court rejected Dotcom’s access request, stating that the release of the intercepted communications would not take place. Citing security concerns, the Court said that the public interest in not disclosing the information outweighed the benefits of disclosure.
This denial triggered a claim by Dotcom to the Court of Appeal. The result of that process is now in and it’s more bad news for the Megaupload founder.
“The intercepted communications are relevant, and there is a public interest in them being disclosed so they may be put to use in and for purposes of this proceeding. Natural justice and open justice are the two dimensions to the public interest in favor of disclosure,” a Court of Appeal statement reads.
However, the Court believes that disclosure is not absolutely necessary for justice to be done in this particular case. Furthermore, it must also weigh the broader public interest and potential fallout that could harm national security, if the GCSB’s methods are compromised.
“The GCSB has admitted liability; what is in issue is the quantum of damages for dignitary losses. Summaries of information already disclosed will permit a fair trial in this case. The GCSB’s claim that disclosure would harm national security and international relations is well-founded. The balancing exercise favors non-disclosure,” the Court concludes.
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/kim2-featured.jpg2501200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-11-29 13:39:352019-11-29 13:39:35Court of Appeal Denies Kim Dotcom Access to Illegal Spy Recordings
Increasingly, people are canceling their expensive cable subscriptions, opting to use cheaper Internet TV instead.
While there are plenty of legal options available, there’s also a broad offer of easy-to-use set-top boxes, sites, and apps that are specifically configured to deliver pirated content.
There are some free alternatives, but high-quality pirate IPTV services are often sold through a monthly or yearly subscription. This has created an industry that’s worth a lot of money. According to a new report from the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), nearly €1 billion in Europe alone.
This is the result of an in-depth study of the IPTV ecosystem published by the EUIPO this week. The research reveals the prevalence of IPTV piracy, who the main players are, how they operate, and what business models are used.
EUIPO looked at hundreds of allegedly illegal IPTV services and combined this with data from the Eurostat household survey data. Based on these figures, it estimates that pirate IPTV services generated €941.7 million annual unlawful revenue in the EU during 2018.
The research further finds that IPTV piracy is a problem across all EU member states. On average, 3.1% of the EU population access these unauthorized services. This translates to a customer base of 13.7 million users.
However, the scale of the problem varies from country to country. The Netherlands and Sweden have the highest percentage of pirate IPTV users, with 8.9% and 8.5% respectively. In Romania and Bulgaria, it’s far less common with 0.7% and 1.3% respectively.
The average subscriber pays a little over five euros per month for a subscription, with rates varying across Europe. Most revenue is generated in the UK, France, and Germany. Together these three countries deliver more than half of the total income, €532 million.
These statistics show that IPTV piracy is a major problem. EUIPO acknowledges this and provides a detailed overview of various actors in the ecosystem, as well as the legal remedies and enforcement options that are available.
EUIPO’s definition of IPTV appears to be quite broad, as cyberlockers and the BitTorrent-powered Popcorn Time are mentioned as well. In general, however, most traditional IPTV services rely on direct streaming feeds and playlists.
Regarding enforcement, EUIPO points out that EU law provides the means to go after developers, operators, and vendors of infringing services. Through civil and criminal actions against the alleged offenders, for example, or website blocking injunctions.
In addition, facilitators could technically face legal problems as well. This includes blogs and YouTube channels that show people how to configure pirate devices, for example.
“Depending on the level of involvement in the provision of illegal services, the facilitator can be co-liable for IPR infringement and can be prosecuted for aiding and abetting,” EUIPO notes.
Whether individual IPTV users can be easily targeted remains an open question. According to EUIPO, requiring operators of illegal IPTV services to disclose information on their users could be incompatible with EU data protection law.
The study is the most elaborate research into the illegal IPTV market to date. While it doesn’t arrive at any concrete recommendations, EUIPO’s Executive Director, Christian Archambeau, believes that understanding the ecosystem will help to raise awareness.
“This is a market area in which infringing business models change quickly as they adapt to new technology and business opportunities. This research clarifies the technology used, the complex supply chains and legal issues.
“It also casts much-needed light on a hidden area of an everyday activity, which is being exploited by organized crime, and should help raise awareness among EU citizens,” Archambeau adds.
In addition to the IPTV study, EUIPO also released new data on the use of pirated content in EU countries. This reveals that there was a 15% decrease from 2017 to 2018. Music piracy, in particular, dropped very fast, 32% on average across the EU
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/iptv-movies-film-feat.jpg2501179Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-11-29 03:38:162019-11-29 03:38:16Pirate IPTV Services Generate Nearly €1 Billion Per Year, EU Study Shows
If US-based anti-piracy groups needed a recognizable local icon to rival the flamboyance of Kim Dotcom, last week they appeared to get one.
Omar Carrasquillo – better known by his YouTube name OMI IN A HELLCAT – is the founder of ‘pirate’ IPTV service Gears Reloaded. Unlike his counterparts behind similar platforms, however, OMI never hid the fact that he was running one of the most recognizable brands in the business.
OMI’s wealth, which included a huge house, the most blingy of jewelry, and a supercar collection to die for, was paraded all over his YouTube channel for everyone to see. But last week it came to an abrupt end. Gears Reloaded unexpectedly closed down and hours later OMI claimed he’d been raided by the FBI and IRS, allegedly for copyright infringement and tax offenses.
When compared to any of OMI’s previous videos, his demeanor made it clear that something catastrophic had happened. Nevertheless, in the absence of any confirmation by the FBI, some people complained that the whole thing was an elaborate fake designed to generate clicks.
Today, following a TV report from Fox 29, any notion that the raid existed only in OMI’s imagination has been dispelled. In the segment, a Fox 29 reporter is seen knocking on OMI’s front door, a home that was previously owned by former Philadelphia Phillies shortstop, Jimmy Rollins.
While the TV crew appears to have received no answer, the channel did manage to speak with some of OMI’s neighbors who confirmed what the YouTuber had been saying all along.
“[The FBI] had like bullet-proof vests on and they had guns drawn and they were very slowly approaching the house next door,” said neighbor Liz Ware.
In respect of OMI’s supercar collection, which some doubters claimed were either still sitting outside or had even been moved by OMI for effect, another neighbor who saw the whole thing recalled what happened.
“They loaded them off one by one through the course of about four or five hours,” said witness John Ware, who appears to be OMI’s next-door neighbor. “They took all the cars. Probably thirty of them.”
Other than OMI’s claims, that the case against him revolves around Gears Reloaded and tax issues, there is still no official confirmation of the allegations against him.
Last week the FBI refused to confirm or deny any operation and after prompting by Fox 29 yesterday, still declined to comment. It’s believed, however, that OMI is yet to be charged.
Interestingly, in a video posted to YouTube a few hours ago by OMI himself, which shows part of the Fox 29 report, the YouTuber said that just a few weeks ago his people asked the IRS “if they were after him” and he was told they were not. However, he’s certainly not happy with the way his accounts were prepared by his tax advisor.
“Back in September when I prepared my taxes, it just didn’t look right. I’m a 100% sure of this, I have 100% proof. I’m not just saying it, it just didn’t look right. My CPA [Certified Public Accountant] …she had access to all my bank accounts. She was only filing the 1099 [forms] that I received and shit didn’t look right,” OMI says.
“I [said] ‘i’m making more money than what you’re filing’. Thank God I didn’t sign them because that would’ve been hiding money, that would’ve been way worse, way worse. We contacted the IRS to see if they were after me, the IRS sent back a letter to my CPA and said no, they weren’t after me.”
OMI says that if he hadn’t been raided last week, there would be a payment plan in place by now, with around $2 million paid upfront in taxes and the rest paid in installments. Clearly, however, time had already run out and according to OMI, the assessment that streaming is something that won’t be acted on probably doesn’t stand anymore.
“To all the other streaming services out there, this is proof that this is not considered a great area,” he adds.
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/fbi-warning.jpg2501200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-11-28 17:37:182019-11-28 17:37:18Gears Reloaded / OMI IN A HELLCAT IPTV Raid: Eye Witnesses Appear on TV
Earlier this year, several major music companies sued Charter Communications, one of the largest Internet providers in the US with 22 million subscribers.
Helped by the RIAA, Capitol Records, Warner Bros, Sony Music, and others accused Charter of deliberately turning a blind eye to its pirating subscribers.
Due to the wider implications the case may have, it’s followed closely by industry groups and legal experts. Two weeks ago, a group of 23 copyright law professors decided to step in, asking the court to hear their opinions which are outlined in a so-called amicus curiae brief.
The professors specifically object to a recent recommendation by a Colorado magistrate judge, which advised not to dismiss the vicarious liability claims for copyright infringement.
According to the judge, Charter’s failure to take other action in response to copyright infringement notices acted as a ‘draw’ to current and prospective subscribers, who would want to use the service in order to pirate.
This argument puts all ISPs at “unprecedented” risk, the professors warned in response. The same is true for Internet subscribers, who may face more privacy-invasive monitoring policies or lose their Internet access based on one-sided warnings.
While Charter is certainly pleased with the support, the music companies aren’t. A few days ago they asked the court not to accept the brief from the professors, suggesting that they may not be neutral and don’t bring anything new to the table.
The music companies first point out that the professors are not “disinterested” parties. Some of them may, directly or indirectly, have a vested interest in the outcome of the case.
“For example, one of the Proposed Amici is the Chairperson of the Board of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (‘EFF’), a nonprofit digital rights group that often advocates against the interests of copyright owners,” the music companies write.
“At a minimum, the Proposed Amici should be required to disclose any employment, consultancy, or other relationships with defendants and other parties that may have interests in the outcome of this action,” they add.
According to the rightsholders, Charter is capable enough to make the same arguments itself. In fact, many of the arguments made by the professors are similar to those the ISP already brought up, they say.
Finally, the music companies point out that several of the arguments raised by the copyright professors are not directly related to copyright law. Instead, they relate to the appropriate federal pleading standards, which isn’t their expertise.
“Copyright professors are not professors of civil procedure, they do not study the intricacies of federal pleading standards, and they offer no specialized insight into the implications of Twombly, Iqbal, and the like.
“Accordingly, the Proposed Amici offer only a weak and redundant opinion on a subject about which the Court and the parties are well-versed,” the music companies add.
All in all, it’s clear that the music companies don’t want the copyright professors to have their say. It’s now up to the Colorado Federal Court to decide whether they can or not. After that, it must decide if the magistrate judge’s recommendations will be adopted.
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/censorship-featured.jpg2501200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-11-28 07:36:212019-11-28 07:36:21Music Companies Don’t Want Copyright Profs to Be Heard in Piracy Case
Telegram was founded in 2013 by brothers Nikolai and Pavel Durov, who previously launched Russian social network VK (vKontakte).
The messaging service has grown from strength to strength and currently has around 300 million users. However, Telegram is increasingly associated with the spread of copyright-infringing material, as highlighted in October by the RIAA.
“Telegram offers many user-created channels which are dedicated to the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted recordings, with some channels focused on particular genres or artists,” the RIAA wrote in its submission to the USTR.
While one submission to US authorities is problematic, Telegram could soon face a few more coming from Russia itself, where a court order exists to prevent ISPs from providing access to the service. The threat comes from the Internet Copyright Protection Association (AZAPI) which represents copyright holders including some of the largest book publishers.
AZAPI says it has identified at least 170 Telegram channels that help to distribute pirated content to an audience of several million users. A letter reportedly sent by AZAPI to Telegram (obtained by local news outlet Kommersant) has the anti-piracy outfit complaining that most channels, and indeed Telegram itself, are not responding to copyright complaints.
It’s a position shared by Aleksey Byrdin, Director General of the Internet Video Association.
“Since 2016, we have repeatedly encountered the absolute neglect of the Telegram administration to the claims of copyright holders on audiovisual content,” Byrdin says.
As a result, AZAPI wants Telegram to introduce digital fingerprinting technology to assist with the identification and removal of allegedly infringing content. However, the whole matter is being further complicated by Telegram’s cryptocurrency business plans.
According to AZAPI, Telegram’s upcoming TON Blockchain network (and its token ‘gram’) “will be an ideal tool for monetizing counterfeit content on an anonymous basis.”
As a result, if anti-piracy measures aren’t taken, AZAPI says it will be left with no choice but to file complaints with the US Chamber of Commerce, the SEC, the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) and the American Book Publishers Association.
Whether any such referrals can deepen the quagmire Telegram already finds itself in the US is another matter, however.
On October 11, the SEC announced that it had “filed an emergency action and obtained a temporary restraining order against two offshore entities conducting an alleged unregistered, ongoing digital token offering in the U.S. and overseas that has raised more than $1.7 billion of investor funds.”
The two companies – Telegram Group and TON issuer – filed a response to the SEC just a day later, requesting that the court throw out the SEC’s case.
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/telegram-large.jpg2321200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-11-27 21:35:182019-11-27 21:35:18Telegram Faces Anti-Piracy Referral to US Over Cryptocurrency Plans
Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN has targeted operators and uploaders of pirate sites for more than a decade.
The group frequently approaches alleged wrongdoers with a proposal to settle the matter privately, but it doesn’t shy away from going to court if needed.
This is what happened to a prolific uploader of torrents and Usenet files. The man was connected to Place2home, a piracy community that was dismantled by BREIN last year. At the time, several operators settled the matter privately, but the uploader didn’t.
This prompted BREIN to take the man to court where he stood accused of sharing hundreds of gigabytes of pirated films and series. These were uploaded using aliases including “Starlight” and “Serie-Team.”
According to Dutch court records, the man was also active as an operator of both Place2home.org and Place2home.net, which offered Usenet and torrent files respectively.
In his defense, the man, whose name is abbreviated to “Van S,” admitted that he uploaded files. However, he denies that this happened on the scale and with the volume BREIN claimed. According to ‘Van S,’ his role was minimal as others were posting under the same aliases.
After reviewing the available evidence, the Utrecht Court sided with BREIN. It concluded that “Van S” was more than “an occasional” uploader and that he was also involved in operating the sites.
Part of the evidence comes from a WhatsApp chat log where ‘Van S,’ using the “Starlight” alias, admits to uploading movies and TV-series totaling 500 gigabytes in February of last year. The same chat also shows that he was well aware of the infringing nature of these files.
Based on this and other evidence the Court concludes that ‘Van S’ shared infringing content on a large scale between 2013 and 2018. In addition, he facilitated copyright infringement through his role as sysop of the two Place2home sites.
The verdict doesn’t cover any damages, but ‘Van S’ is ordered to pay BREIN’s legal fees, which total over €13,000. In addition, the man is required to remove his uploads and provide information about others who were involved with Place2home. The latter is important, as it may lead to additional suspects.
Failing to comply with the order will come at a high price. The Court notes that ‘Van S’ must pay a penalty of €5,000 per day that he doesn’t come forward, with a maximum of €150,000.
BREIN director Tim Kuik is happy with the outcome. The verdict shows that, in addition to uploaders, site operators can be held responsible as well. This is in line with the EU Court of Justice’s ruling in The Pirate Bay case, Kuik informs TorrentFreak.
The Place2home bust itself has also proven to be useful in the broader scheme of things. According to BREIN, it revealed that people higher up the chain were involved as well. This includes reseller Newsconnection, which offered subscriptions to Usenet provider XSnews.
“According to statements of uploaders who already settled, the sites were financed by people up the chain,” Kuik tells TorrentFreak.
These uploaders also shared internal communication which backed this up. That includes WhatsApp conversations, which also appeared as evidence in the most recent court case.
“To us, it is evident that the various players on the commercial Usenet market are colluding to optimize the availability of popular content on Usenet. This is completely different from the original Usenet,” Kuik notes.
BREIN believes that Usenet resellers and providers profit from piracy, and not just indirectly. In some cases, they are financing pirate sites as well, in order to keep their businesses profitable. With information from people such as ‘Van S,’ BREIN hopes to document these connections.
“We believe that the money makers on Usenet who are pretending to be ignorant are in fact are fully aware of what pays the bills: access to unauthorized content. They are facilitating it and financing it,” Kuik says.
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/keyboardfeat.jpg2501200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-11-27 11:34:182019-11-27 11:34:18BREIN Wins Court Case Against Prolific Torrent and Usenet Uploader
In October 2013, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agents received information from PayPal concerning two ‘pirate’ websites, Noobroom.com and Noobroom7.com.
For a fee, the sites allowed subscribers to stream movies and TV shows, which was of particular interest to the MPAA. Their investigation concluded that the platforms distributed works in breach of their members’ copyrights.
In July the following year, the MPAA sent a cease-and-desist notice to Noobroom but within days, the site shifted its users to a new site, SuperChillin.com. The MPAA determined that the platforms – plus another pair named as Movietv.co and SitPlay.com – were operated by Oregon resident Talon White.
With White under suspicion of copyright and money laundering offenses, last November a magistrate judge in Oregon approved a search and seizure warrant targeting millions in cash and cryptocurrency.
On Monday, the Department of Justice revealed that after netting more than $8 million from his piracy activities, Talon had pleaded guilty to one count each of criminal copyright infringement and tax evasion.
According to the Department of Justice, White underreported his income by more than $4.4 million from 2013 through 2017, resulting in a willful underpayment of $1.9 million in taxes.
The penalties faced by White are severe. On top of a potential five years in prison, a $250,000 fine, and three years’ supervised release on each of the two charges, the financial implications are already massive.
White has entered into a plea agreement which will see him forfeit $3.9 million seized from his bank accounts, $35,000 in cash, cryptocurrency worth around $424,000, plus his home in Oregon, currently valued at $415,000.
On top, he must pay $669,557 in restitution to the MPAA and $3,392,708 in restitution, which includes penalties and interest, to the IRS.
White will be sentenced on February 21, 2020, before U.S. District Court Judge Ann L. Aiken. In the meantime, however, the case raises additional interest in at least two other directions.
A case revealed at the weekend in New Zealand appears to have some similarities with White’s. Both involve a pirate movie site in the US, both received a PayPal referral for suspicious activity, and both resulted in the seizure of large volumes of cash and cryptocurrency.
Finally, the involvement of the IRS in a criminal copyright infringement case raises questions about what lies ahead for Gears Reloaded founder Omar Carrasquillo, aka YouTube OMI IN A HELLCAT.
Last week, he reported that he’d been raided by several FBI officers and a single IRS agent who seized “pretty much everything”, including millions of dollars, a huge car collection, and a large collection of jewelry. Ever since he’s been posting videos on the topic, one of which included a brief glimpse of a purported search a seizure warrant issued by a court in Pennsylvania.
Carrasquillo insists that what he did in respect of IPTV isn’t a crime in the United States but concedes that he didn’t pay his taxes in a timely manner and he’s learned his lesson. He hopes that the money seized will cover his back taxes but still expects to spend some time in prison.
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/court1-featured.jpg00Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-11-27 01:33:172019-11-27 01:33:17Movie Pirate Pleads Guilty, Faces Five Years in Prison, Forfeits Millions of Dollars
Following a complaint from major media companies Rogers, Bell and TVA, the Court ordered several major ISPs to block access to domains and IP-addresses of the pirate IPTV service GoldTV.
While the service in question has a relatively modest number of users, the order paves the way for additional site blocking requests that may target traditional pirate sites as well.
This is exactly what major rightsholders have extensively lobbied for in the past. After a request for a national pirate site blocking scheme was denied last year, the media companies have now accomplished this goal through the courts.
Most Internet providers, which include Bell and Rogers as well, haven’t objected to the request. However, there’s one that’s pushing back. According to TekSavvy, site blocking will do more harm than good and the company filed an official appeal yesterday.
“We are very concerned about what the federal court’s new site-blocking regime means for the open Internet as a whole,” says Andy Kaplan-Myrth TekSavvy’s vice-president of regulatory affairs.
TekSavvy argues that the Federal Court reached the wrong conclusion and asked for the order to be set aside. One of the problems, according to the ISP, is that the Court heavily relied on a UK ruling, instead of merely following Canadian law.
The ISP further highlights that it runs counter to Canada’s Net Neutrality principles.
“[The order] is based on foreign law, and it clearly violates Network Neutrality, without giving any serious consideration to that fundamental principle of communications law in Canada,” Kaplan-Myrth tells TorrentFreak.
“If it is allowed to stand, this site-blocking order will be just the first of many, undermining the open Internet to protect the profits and business models of a handful of powerful media conglomerates,” he adds.
TekSavvy is the only ISP to file an appeal but, outside court, there has been strong opposition from others. Canadian law professor Michael Geist, for example, has criticized the ruling, arguing that the Government should weigh in on such a crucial matter.
“In reviewing the GoldTV ruling, it is obvious that site blocking raises so many issues that it requires a government policy decision, not a single judge making a myriad of policy calls,” Geist noted.
Meanwhile, the Federal Court’s order has already resulted in the first blocks. Several people are reporting that their ISPs have started to roll out the restrictions already. This includes Rogers, Fido, Bell Aliant, and SaskTel.
It’s clear that rightsholders are pleased with the blocking ruling, so they are expected to fiercely defend it at the Federal Court of Appeal. Given the controversy around the site-blocking topic, it would be no surprise if other interested parties will have their say in court as well.
—
A copy of TekSavvy’s Notice of Appeal, filed at the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal, is available here (pdf).
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/roadblock-blocked-feat.jpg2501200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-11-26 15:32:112019-11-26 15:32:11TekSavvy Appeals First Canadian Pirate Site Blockade
LibreELEC 9.2.0 (Leia) the final version has arrived based upon Kodi v18.5, the 9.2 release contains many changes and refinements to user experience and a complete overhaul of the underlying OS core to improve stability and extend hardware support compared to the LE 9.0 release.
Changes since last Beta:
driver support for Webcams
improvements for the RPi4
added firmware updater for RPi4
Change for Raspberry 4:
With LE 9.1.002 and later you need to add “hdmi_enable_4kp60=1“ to your config.txt if you want to use 4k output at the RPi4. Before you needed “hdmi_enable_4k=1“ that is now deprecated.
Raspberry 4:
It would be nice to have the 4B running the latest mainline kernel as other devices in LibreELEC 9.2, but adding support for an all-newSoC chipset is a huge effort and the Pi Foundation needed to align initial 4B software with the current Raspbian release to maximise compatibility with existing software and to keep the workload sensible. Generic x86/64 devices are running Linux 5.1, while Raspberry Pi devices (0/1/2/3/4) are using Linux 4.19 with some new/extra code.
In this initial release 1080p playback behaviour and performance on the 4B are broadly on-par with the previous 3B/3B+ model, except for HEVC media which is now hardware decoded and massively improved. New 4K video capabilities still have plenty of rough edges to be smoothed out, but the Pi Foundation developers have been pushing fixes to the test team at a phenomenal rate over the last month and that will continue as the userbase expands.
The 4B now uses SPI flash for the bootloader. Current firmware supports SD card boot only – Network and USB booting are still on the Pi Foundation to-do list. Also on the list is HBR audio (current audio capabilities are the same as the 3B) and 3D video. The 4B hardware is HDR capable, but software support has a dependency on the new Linux kernel frameworks merged by Intel developers (with help from Team LibreELEC/Kodi) in Linux 5.2 and a kernel bump will be needed to use them. Once the initial excitement and activity from the 4B launch calms down, serious work on HDR and transitioning Raspberry Pi over to the new GBM/V4L2 video pipeline can start.
Rockchip:
Our Rockchip releases remain in an state with limited support. The Kodi version is updated but there are no significant video/audio improvements to the Rockchip 4.4 kernel codebase – and none planned. Our work on Rockchip support has refocussed onto the Linux 5.x kernel to use the modern kernel frameworks needed for the next-generation Kodi video pipeline. This work is progressing nicely, but it means the 4.4 codebase “is what it is” until a future kernel bump.
Amlogic
Our original goal was to announce Allwinner and Amlogic images alongside Rockchip as part of the LibreELEC 9.2 release, but while overall readiness has greatly improved in recent months – each has specific technical challenges to overcome before they meet our basic critera for a public release. On the human side of the project several maintainers also have reduced availability for support due to work and family commitments. Combining these factors together, the team felt it was better to be patient and not rush releases.
So instead of releasing LibreELEC 9.2 alpha images we are announcing the start of official nightly images from our master development branch.
If you experience problems, please open an thread at our forum. You can also open an ticket at our issue tracker.
Upgrading
On first boot the Kodi media database will be upgraded. Depending on your hardware and media collection size this could take several minutes. Please be patient.
Despite a clear decrease in momentum in the UK in recent times, site-blocking remains a favored anti-piracy tool in many countries around the world.
Companies exploiting the Australian market seem convinced that the practice is good for business, as a brand new blocking application filed at the Federal Court shows. First reported by ComputerWorld, it features a broad coalition of movie, TV show, and anime companies, all of whom have previous blocking experience in Australia.
To keep the ‘feel’ of the application as local as possible, it’s no surprise that Roadshow Films is the lead applicant, despite having just one movie (The Lego Movie) listed in court documents. The remaining 11 include Disney, Paramount, Columbia, Universal, Warner and Netflix, plus Hong Kong-based broadcaster Television Broadcasts Limited and anime distributor Madman Anime.
With the companies involved having trod the blocking injunction path many times before, the application itself now takes a very familiar form. It demands that 50 local ISPs including Telstra, Optus, TPG and Vodafone block a wide range of ‘pirate’ sites. In terms of content, however, this is one of the broadest applications yet.
In Australia legal-speak, pirate sites of all kinds are referred to as “Target Online Locations” (TOL), of which there are 87 (identified by their domains) in the current application.
There are several categories of ‘TOL’ – streaming platforms, download platforms, linking sites (including torrent sites), sites that offer software that allows streaming or downloads, those that provide subtitles for copyright works, plus sites that offer proxy access to pirate sites.
Some notable inclusions are the community-resurrected KickassTorrents site operating from Katcr.co, plus some less than authentic Kickass clones operating from around half a dozen additional URLs.
The same goes for a range of domains trading on the SolarMovie, YIFY and YTS brands, without being connected to the original sites. In fact, many domains listed in the application follow this copycat theme, including those featuring 123movies, Primewire, CouchTuner, Putlocker, WatchFree, ProjectFreeTV, and YesMovies-style wording.
An interesting addition is that of getpopcorntime.is. This isn’t the original Popcorn Time app download site but does offer a variant of the software that can be used to gain access to movies and TV shows. However, the domain itself doesn’t offer any infringing content, or any links to the same.
Subtitle download sites, including TVSubtitles.net and MSubs.net, are included in the application. These types of platforms were previously the topic of debate in a previous application but the court eventually conceded they can indeed be blocked.
In a sign of how far the net is now being cast (most of the major pirate sites are already blocked in Australia), this application also features Russian torrent giant Rutor.info and China-focused btbtdy.me. Both of these sites have plenty of alternative domains so blocking just these two is unlikely to achieve much.
Finally, no blocking application would be complete without an effort to block all the ‘proxy’ sites that have the sole purpose of facilitating access to sites blocked as a result of previous injunctions. The problem in respect of these proxies seems to be considerable, with at least 13 of the 87 domains in this application falling into that category.
—
The full list of domains requested for blocking is as follows:
