Minecraft is one of the most recognizable and popular videogames of the last decade.
Created by Swedish developer Markus Persson (Notch) and released by developer Mojang in 2011, Minecraft was subsequently acquired in 2014 by Microsoft as part of a $2.5 billion deal.
Over the years, Minecraft has been made available on many platforms and along the way has gathered millions of fans. Minecraft Classic is even available to play in a web browser by simply visiting Classic.Minecraft.net. However, a developer who had a similar idea recently received some unwanted correspondence from Microsoft.
Taiwan-based student and self-taught programmer Ian Huang has been working on MC.JS, a project which he also hoped would bring Minecraft to the web using Javascript.
“MC.JS brings the best-selling PC game Minecraft into the web with the power of Javascript,” Huang wrote in a now-deleted Github page.
“Having to open an additional app to play a game is sometimes too tiring. Therefore, I thought it’d be interesting to somehow implement Minecraft with Javascript, essentially bringing the whole Minecraft game onto the web,” he continued.
“This not only takes away the tedious process of installing the game, it also brings the entire game to players within a couple [of] clicks.”
While there many people out there who might appreciate such a project, the folks at Microsoft are not among them. Despite MC.JS being “a work in progress” with “still a lot of features waiting to be implemented”, the company took action to have it taken down.
In a DMCA notice sent to Github, where the project was hosted, brand protection and anti-piracy outfit AppDetex advised the development platform that MC.JS infringes several aspects of Microsoft’s intellectual property rights.
“The software being distributed on the reported site..[..]..violates these rights by providing users with an application that purports to act as a copy of Minecraft using javascript, encouraging users to provide their official Microsoft logins and circumvent Minecraft’s servers and logins for official gameplay,” the notice reads.
“On top of that, the download is being advertised with copyrighted Minecraft imagery and textures, acting as the backdrop to the site, without Microsoft’s consent or authorization. This is not an action protected by any fair use doctrine,” it continues.
The notice of infringement was sent under the DMCA (17 U.S.C. § 512) but also notes that Minecraft trademarks have been infringed. As a result, Github took down the project, which may or may not bring the effort to an end.
TorrentFreak contacted the developer of MC.JS for additional comment but at the time of publication, we were yet to receive a response.
Unlicensed IPTV services are now billed as one of the biggest threats faced by producers of movies and television shows.
There are numerous cases pending against alleged operators of ‘pirate’ services actioned under copyright law.
However, in the United States, DISH Networks and NagraStar are increasingly using the Federal Communications Act to target companies and individuals who it claims are involved in the capture and subsequent rebroadcasting of its satellite signals via ‘pirate’ IPTV services.
The latest targets are One Box TV, LLC and alleged sole manager Donna Fogle, both of Florida. It’s alleged that One Box TV sold $19 per month IPTV subscriptions containing unlicensed DISH programming and Android-style boxes configured with the same features for around $275.
In common with another recent DISH case filed against unlicensed IPTV provider IPGuys, the broadcaster claims that it was able to use technical means determine that at least some of the content offered by One Box TV was illegally sourced from its satellite broadcasts.
“The DISH Programming distributed on the OneBox service was received from DISH’s satellite communications without authorization from DISH,” the complaint reads.
“During testing of the OneBox service, encoded messages incorporated into DISH’s satellite communications of the Willow Cricket channel, for example, were detected on the Willow Cricket channel retransmitted to customers of the OneBox service, thereby confirming this content originated from DISH’s satellite communications.”
While One Box TV is an LLC, the company doesn’t appear to have particularly grand premises. According to DISH, the company operates from a booth at a flea market and websites including OneBoxLive.com and OneBoxTV.com.
OneBoxTV.com..before it disappeared
A note in the complaint indicates that DISH had a “pre-suit discussion” with One Box TV during which the company said that it had the ability to “remove channels” from its service. It’s not clear when that communication took place but if customer complaints posted to the Better Business Bureau website are any indicator, One Box TV went down during May.
“When we purchased our TV streaming box, we were promised lifetime updates. Our box needs updated [sic], and we can’t find this seller. E-mails returned. We paid $175 cash for the OneBox about 2-3 years ago. Model No. OneBoxTVPlus. We were promied lifetme updates [sic], but we cannot find the seller,” one reads.
Another complainant indicated that they went to the company’s place of business, but left disappointed.
“We received notice of them stopping their business. We went to see what’s up and the booth they were at is empty. We are out over $350 on our equipment. Sales rep was Donna F. She sold us 2 boxes and a monthly service and now we get an email saying they are discontinuing their business. We are out $350 for equipment,” a complaint posted May 13 reads.
Yet another complaint says that the company took back a previously-sold box to update it, but then closed down without returning the device. Subsequent phone calls went unanswered and the company’s voicemail was reportedly full.
DISH is now demanding a broad permanent injunction against One Box TV and its alleged operator, plus actual or statutory damages of between $10,000 and $100,000 per violation, plus costs.
Finally, the DISH case against IPGuys reported last week listed Miracle Box Media as a reseller of that service. Court records indicate that Virginia-based Miracle Box Media LLC and alleged operator Melvin Crawley Jr. are also being sued by DISH along broadly similar lines.
The One Box TV and Miracle Box complaints can be found here and here.
Piracy is an intriguing phenomenon. On the one hand, it is seen as an existential threat by the entertainment industries. However, pirates are often heavy consumers of legal content as well.
Over the past several years, a vast array of studies have tried to determine to what extent piracy hurts legitimate revenue streams and, equally importantly, how it can be stopped.
There are no definitive answers but each study adds a small piece of the puzzle. One recent article, published by University of Amsterdam researchers João Pedro Quintais and Joost Poort, suggests that affordability and availability are key drivers.
The researchers analyzed a wealth of data and conducted surveys among 35,000 respondents, in thirteen countries. What they found was that, between 2014 and 2017, self-reported piracy rates have dropped in all the European countries that were surveyed, except Germany.
In a 70-page paper, published in American University International Law Review, the researchers try to pinpoint the most likely explanation for this decline, starting with enforcement.
% Pirates on Internet population 2014 / 2017
In a detailed literature overview, the paper begins by discussing various enforcement activities, ranging from pirate site blockades, criminal enforcement, to civil suits against individual file-sharers. While some of these studies suggest that enforcement works, others reveal a limited effect or nothing at all.
This article doesn’t have space for a full review of all the literature, but the conclusion from the report’s authors is clear. Enforcement is not the silver bullet that will stop piracy.
“Despite the abundance of enforcement measures, their perceived effectiveness is uncertain. Therefore, it is questionable whether the answer to successfully tackling online copyright infringement lies in additional rights or enforcement measures,” the report notes.
Instead, the researchers believe that other factors are likely responsible for the decline in piracy rates. Specifically, they point to affordability and availability of legal content.
Through the extensive surveys, conducted in France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, UK, Brazil, Canada, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, and Thailand, they find several clues that this may indeed be the case.
Many of the data presented by the researchers have been published before. For example, they show that piracy rates are higher when the gross national income of a country is lower. This effect is particularly visible for lower incomes, as shown below.
Pirates per legal user / GNI in 2014 and 2017
The authors further observe a clear increase in spending on legal content where piracy rates dropped. In addition, they point to an earlier study that shows how music piracy declined in the Netherlands between 2008 and 2012, while piracy rates were still increasing for films and series. By 2012, Spotify had been introduced in the Netherlands (early 2010) but Nexflix not yet and HBO only just.
Based on their analysis, the researchers conclude that affordability and availability are indeed key drivers for declining piracy rates. In particular, they found no conclusive evidence that anti-piracy enforcement is effective.
“The main takeaway from our research is that online piracy is declining. The key driver for this decline is the increasing availability of affordable legal content, rather than enforcement measures,” their paper concludes.
When the conditions are right, people will eventually consume more content legally, it’s argued. This is also backed by the finding that 95% of the self-proclaimed pirates in their survey were legal consumers as well. Many of these turn to piracy due to lacking availability or high costs.
“Where the legal supply of content is affordable, convenient and diverse, there is increasing consumer demand for it. Under the right conditions, consumers are willing to pay for copyright-protected content and to abandon piracy,” the paper reads.
This means that policymakers and copyright holders should direct their efforts more to the supply side, instead of enforcement activities.
“The crucial policy implication here is that policy makers should focus their resources and legislative efforts on improving those conditions. In particular, they ought to shift their focus from repressive approaches to tackle online infringement towards policies and measures that foster lawful remunerated access to copyright-protected content,” the researchers conclude.
This isn’t a new thought. Over the past several years, many people have hammered on the importance of appealing legal options. The new research confirms this. However, it is worth noting that the paper itself doesn’t provide any data showing that the recent drop in piracy is in fact caused by improved legal availability.
In other words, the empirical evidence doesn’t back either anti-piracy strategy conclusively.
For example, when we look at a graph of the piracy rates among legal users and the gross national income in different countries between 2014 and 2017 (shown above), we see that Sweden experienced the most pronounced piracy drop. However, there’s no clear change in legal availability compared to other countries, as far as we know.
TorrentFreak spoke to Joost Poort, one of the authors of the paper, who agreed that the lack of direct evidence is indeed a weak point. While there are several hints that the recent drop in piracy is mostly caused by better legal options, there is no hard data to back it up in this specific case.
Analyzing the effects of piracy is complicated, and there are signs that enforcement might also work in some cases. For example, just last week we reported on a study that showed how website blocking can motivate some pirates to sign up for a paid streaming service.
For many, however, it’s tempting to conclude that focusing on the carrot rather than the stick is the way forward.
That said, it’s also possible that the solution to piracy includes a little bit of both. While one may be more effective than the other, it’s safe to conclude that the puzzle isn’t solved yet.
—–
The full paper by João Pedro Quintais and Joost Poort titled: “The Decline of Online Piracy: How Markets – Not Enforcement – Drive Down Copyright Infringement”, is available here.
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/iptv-movies-film-feat.jpg2501179Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-08-31 22:55:152019-08-31 22:55:15“Legal Options Are a Better Way to Beat Piracy Than Enforcement”
In April, a group of movie companies filed a lawsuit against the operators of various websites that promoted and distributed the Showbox app.
Showbox and similarly named clones are used by millions of people. These apps enable users to stream movies via torrents and direct sources, using a Netflix-style interface.
The tools are a thorn in the side of movie companies, including those behind “The Hitman’s Bodyguard,” “London Has Fallen,” and “Hunter Killer.” In a lawsuit filed at a U.S. District Court in Hawaii, the companies pointed out that Showbox facilitates massive piracy.
“Plaintiffs bring this action to stop the massive piracy of their motion pictures brought on by the software application Show Box,” the 58-page complaint read.
“The Defendants misleadingly promote the Show Box app as a legitimate means for viewing content to the public, who eagerly install the Show Box app to watch copyright protected content, thereby leading to profit for the Defendants,” the companies added.
The movie outfits went after several defendants suspected of having ties to one or more Showbox-related sites. This includes a Pakistani man named Qazi Muhammad Zarlish, who allegedly operated ‘latestshowboxapp.com.’
While it can be tricky to get a judgment against an operator of a foreign pirate site, the movie companies can claim a win this week. They negotiated a consent judgment in which Zarlish agrees to stop any infringing activities. In addition, a money judgment is awarded in the amount of $150,000, to cover the costs, fees and damages.
Whether the Pakistani man has this kind of money at his disposal remains to be seen. However, his website that offered Showbox is no longer online. And in addition to the money, the judgment also includes a permanent injunction that prevents him from promoting or distributing other infringing apps.
These include, but are not limited to the “Show Box app, Popcorn Time, CotoMovies (Bobby Movie Box), MediaBox HD (The Movie DB), Cinemabox, Moviebox, Terrarrium, Mobdro and software applications affiliated with following piracy sources: YIFY; YTS; RARBG; TORRENTZ2; NYAA.SI; LIMETORRENTS; ZOOQLE; EZTV; and TORRENTDOWNLOADS.”
The paperwork shows that Qazi Muhammad Zarlish represented himself. He explained that the Showbox APK file that was made available on the site came from the third-party site showbox.fun. Interestingly, he assumed that it was perfectly legal.
“[The defendant] believed the Show Box app was a legitimate application similar to Netflix and Amazon Prime Video based upon the descriptions of Show Box app at the websites showbox.fun and show-box.pro,” the consent judgment reads.
Since this matter was resolved in a consent judgment, the Court didn’t review the case on its merits. However, it’s clear that the defendant made a rather expensive mistake, as the settlement shows.
—
A copy of the stipulated consent order between Qazi Muhammad Zarlish and Hunter Killer Productions, Inc., TBV Productions, LLC, Venice PI, LLC, Bodyguard Productions, Inc., and LHF Productions, Inc. is available here (pdf).
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/money-feat.jpg2501200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-08-31 02:53:132019-08-31 02:53:13Showbox Site Owner Settles Piracy Case For $150,000
There are numerous mixed martial arts organizations around the world but none are prestigious as the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC).
The UFC’s broadcasting model is complex, from offering free-to-air events in some countries, relatively cheap subscription access in others, to particularly expensive pay-per-views in the United States, for example.
But whatever the model, UFC events are pirated on a large scale, both during the events themselves via web-based streaming portals and IPTV, to live streaming torrents and those available after the event, so to speak. The UFC would like to bring all of this piracy to a halt, but so would lots of other media companies.
With mixed martial arts’ popularity growing in places like Russia, the UFC has sought to curtail piracy. Last December the organization – which is home to superstars such as Conor McGregor and unbeaten Russian arch-rival Khabib Nurmagomedov – met with the local telecoms watchdog to discuss progress.
Roscomnadzor deputy Vadim Subbotin held a meeting with UFC Russia vice president Andrei Gromkovsky. The telecoms watchdog reportedly advised the UFC on procedures available to tackle sites that distribute UFC content without permission, including contacting those sites with requests to remove content.
“If the owner does not take measures to delete this information, [the UFC] has the right to contact the Moscow City Court and demand protection of its copyright, namely, to ensure that the Internet resource is blocked for the duration of the determination of the Moscow City Court,” Roscomnadzor reported.
According to official sources, the meeting went well, with agreements reached between the parties on how to move forward against errant sites, within existing legislation. That now appears to have claimed its first scalp, with the UFC successfully obtaining a blocking injunction – thought to be its first anywhere in the world – to have an infringing site blocked at the ISP level.
According to a report from Roscomnadzor, UFC Russia has been successful in obtaining a preliminary blocking order from the Moscow City Court. It compels local Internet service providers to block access to Ripple.is, a site focused on mixed martial arts that reportedly streamed live UFC events without appropriate licensing.
The site appears to carry MMA news stories culled from other sites. However, on closer inspection, it also offers a ‘VIP’ section which directs users to an IPTV service which enables visitors to watch all kinds of sporting events – UFC bouts included – for a relatively small payment.
Whether this was the basis of the complaint remains unclear but at least for now, UFC fans in Russia won’t be able to directly access the Ripple.is domain without using circumvention techniques such as VPNs or Tor.
Should Ripple.is continue infringing the UFC’s rights, the company will be able to return to the Moscow City Court to obtain a permanent injunction, one that will place the domain on Russia’s national blacklist.
The blocking injunction arrives at a peculiar time for UFC fans in Russia.
For many local citizens, the fighter they most want to see in action is Khabib Nurmagomedov, the man who submitted Conor McGregor at UFC 229 to retain his lightweight belt. However, few if any will have to turn to pirate sources to watch Nurmagomedov defend his title at UFC 242 against interim lightweight champ Dustin Poirier on September 7, 2019.
While US UFC fans will be paying around $80 to watch the PPV event, the entire thing will be broadcast on Russia’s main state TV channel for free, making site-blocking completely irrelevant.
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/cage.jpg2501200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-08-30 16:52:142019-08-30 16:52:14UFC Knocks Out First Pirate Site Following Debut Blocking Action
When the European Parliament adopted Europe’s first net neutrality rules in 2015, some people believed that this would put an end to BitTorrent blocking
The rules, which were included in the Telecoms Single Market (TSM) regulation, prevent ISPs from outright discrimination between different types of traffic.
While there has been little research on the topic thus far, a new paper published by Italian researchers shows that several ISPs continue to interfere with BitTorrent transfers.
For the study, Valerio Luconi and his colleagues used a specialized tool called NeutMon to measure traffic flows on several mobile ISP networks. Specifically, they checked whether BitTorrent traffic is treated differently than traffic that appears the same, but isn’t using the BitTorrent protocol.
These traffic measurements were taken throughout the day and in a follow-up measurement, were compared to regular traffic as well. The results show that despite the EU’s net neutrality rules, BitTorrent throttling is still ongoing.
The research started with a broad measurement targeting all of the nine ISPs that were available through the NeutMon tool, some in multiple countries. They then measured the throughput of BitTorrent traffic versus the control group, to see if there are any changes.
The results show that three of the nine ISPs interfered with BitTorrent traffic flowing through the standard port 6881.
This wasn’t the case on all tests, so the researchers selected these providers for a more thorough follow-up run.
This “focused” test looked at the average download speeds for the following traffic types, which were (except HTTP) all similar in respect of types of packets and size.
–BT: BitTorrent traffic on port 6881, or a random high number if that fails –CT1: Control traffic on port 6881 –CT2: Control traffic on a random port higher than 50000 –HT: HTTP request of a large file
After testing the three possibly non-neutral ISPs the researchers found that the earlier interference that was found at the Swedish ISP Telenor could not be replicated. However, on Vodafone (Spain/Italy) and Yoigo (Spain), something was amiss, as the figure below also shows.
The researchers found that Vodafone always blocked BitTorrent traffic on port 6881, except between 1 AM to 5 AM. However, BitTorrent traffic was blocked on higher ports as well. This led to the suspicion that it takes place through deep packet inspection.
“We can in general confirm that classification is done via deep packet inspection, as only BT is always throttled with a very low throughput, both when using port 6881 and when using a random high port,” the researchers write.
The control traffic performs much better, although there is occasional interference there as well. According to the researchers, this might be because this traffic is sporadically misidentified as BitTorrent traffic since it shares the same characteristics. HTTP traffic was, as expected, allowed to flow freely.
On Yoigo there’s also non-neutral activity, according to the findings. Interestingly, much of the control traffic was throttled as well. According to the researchers, this could be due to port blocking.
“From the obtained results we can confirm Yoigo’s non-neutral behavior too, but with quite different modalities,” they write.
“BT, CT1, and CT2 are capped to a very low throughput, whereas HT obtains good performance. These results seem also to confirm that traffic is shaped on a per-port basis.”
BitTorrent was certainly treated differently from the two control conditions though. The researchers report that Yoigo always shut down BitTorrent traffic after a short time, which meant that none of the tests completed. This suggests that the ISP uses multiple blocking measures.
The article concludes that while there’s no blocking on most mobile ISPs, some clearly interfere with traffic in a non-neutral way. They argue that it may be time to introduce real-world monitoring systems, to check whether ISPs play by the rules or not.
That brings us to another issue, which is not mentioned in the article. While the EU has indeed adopted net neutrality rules, it’s up for debate whether BitTorrent blocking is actually prohibited.
ISPs are arguably still allowed to throttle specific categories for “reasonable” network management purposes, as long at it improves the overall “transmission quality.” That would not be a far-fetched argument since torrent traffic can be quite demanding on a network.
While most YouTube users are simply visitors to the site, a minority produce their own content and upload it to the platform for others to enjoy.
Some can make a decent living when they enter a revenue-sharing agreement with YouTube but when things go wrong, those earnings can stop in an instant. According to popular YouTuber DJ Short-E (real name Erik Mishiyev), this happened to him – and he’s blaming the whole thing on YouTube using copyright-strikes as “retaliation” to his threats of a lawsuit.
In a complaint filed in a California federal court Wednesday, Mishiyev describes himself as a “well-known Journalist and DJ, known as ‘Short-E’, who publishes original music, DJ mixes, and celebrity interviews in videos on YouTube.”
Since 2007, Mishiyev says he’s run two YouTube channels – ‘djshortehot4eva’ and ‘theshorteshow’. These channels were monetized following an agreement with YouTube and after developing a subscriber base of 250,000 users, his channels generated more than 110 million views. For this, YouTube paid him $310,000 over a five-year period.
In March 2016, Mishiyev claims he began receiving copyright claims on his “highest advertisement revenue videos”. He says he responded with counter-claims to avoid YouTube’s “three strikes” process which would’ve disabled his channel. However, he reports that all claims were won and his channel was re-instated for monetization.
A year later, Mishiyev says YouTube recognized him as a successful contributor by handing him a “Silver Creator Award” for reaching 100,000 subscribers. However, despite growing his audience at a rate of around 4,000 subscribers per month, views remained low when compared to similar channels.
“Plaintiff was concerned about this suspicious activity and sought confirmation numerous times from YOUTUBE that they were truly distributing his new videos to his fans and subscribers, but YOUTUBE failed to provide such confirmation, stating ‘They could not share this information’ with him,” the complaint notes.
Mishiyev includes an email from one of his subscribers to back up his claims that YouTube failed to promote his content as per his agreement with the company.
“I subscribed to both of your channels and turned my notifications on for you so I would know when you uploaded new videos,” it reads.
“I subscribed about 2 weeks ago and haven’t got a single notification from youtube but I noticed you have uploaded many new videos since I subscribed [to your channels]. Please fix this problem, i’m sure there are many other people who haven’t been notified either and that’s why I noticed your views are very low compared to other similar channels.”
According to Mishiyev, YouTube’s failure to promote his content would cause him to lose $125,000 in revenue over a three-year period but after losing faith in YouTube’s support team, he told the company he would be filing a lawsuit if its conduct persisted.
In response, on December 18, 2018, YouTube reportedly sent a notice saying that they would be terminating Mishiyev’s accounts and removing his content. The very next day, serious copyright problems began.
“On December 15, 2018 through January 15, 2019, Plaintiff was abruptly bombarded with copyright claims like he never had been before the entire time he had been managing and growing his channels,” the complaint notes.
A sample of the copyright notices received
On January 22, 2018, YouTube reportedly blocked access to all of Mishiyev’s videos, replacing them with a notice that they had been removed due “to a copyright claim.” YouTube then placed “strikes” on his account but Mishiyev says that YouTube’s actions were actually in response to his threat of a lawsuit.
“Although YOUTUBE stated they removed his channels and videos for copyright claims, the removals appeared to Plaintiff to be in retaliation for his placing them on notice that he would be filing a lawsuit,” Mishiyev’s lawyers write.
According to the YouTuber, he followed the company’s rules by submitting counter-notices as required by the DMCA, noting that every time he had done that in the past he had prevailed since no one ever filed a lawsuit against him.
Generally, when a counter-notification is filed and there is no lawsuit notification from a complainant, content goes back up. But YouTube apparently wrote back saying that at least some of Mishiyev’s counter-notices were “ineligible.”
The complaint adds that YouTube later retracted its statement that the videos were ineligible for counter-notification and promised to process them. It’s not clear what happened next but it didn’t help Mishiyev’s predicament.
“To date, Plaintiff’s strikes have not been removed, his counter claims have not been processed, and his videos and channels have been permanently removed, though no claimants presented evidence that they filed any lawsuits. Thus, evidencing that YOUTUBE did not simply remove his content because of copyright claims, but instead in retaliation for placing them on notice that he was filing a lawsuit against them,” the complaint asserts.
As a result, the now-former YouTuber says he lost $90,000 in revenue between January 2019 and July 2019, adding that when lost subscribers, views, future views, performance bookings, and lost advertising and sponsorship deals are taken into account, YouTube’s actions have caused him damages of $720,000, for which he demands compensation in full.
Mishiyev is suing YouTube for breach of contract, interference with contractual relations, interference and negligent interference with economic advantage, and negligence. He also demands an injunction preventing YouTube from “banning Plaintiff from the full use of the internet and YOUTUBE’s services.”
The complaint plus supporting documents can be found here 1,2,3,4,5 (pdf)
Here are part one and two of our chat with Audrey Tang, Digital Minister of Taiwan.
Tang taught herself programming at an early age of 8 and she says that she’s a ‘civic hacker’ who uses her specialized skills to help rather than harm.
Part one includes Taiwan’s 2014 Sunflower Student Movement, which marked the first time the country’s legislature has been occupied by citizens, and which led to a radical new phase for Taiwanese democracy.
In part two we discuss, among other things, how the Taiwanese government is using Free Software such as Discourse and Polis to enable its ongoing real-time experiment in direct democracy
—
Steal This Show aims to release bi-weekly episodes featuring insiders discussing crypto, privacy, copyright and file-sharing developments. It complements our regular reporting by adding more room for opinion, commentary, and analysis.
If you enjoy this episode, consider becoming a patron and getting involved with the show. Check out Steal This Show’s Patreon campaign: support us and get all kinds of fantastic benefits!
Produced by Jamie King Edited & Mixedby Lucas Marston Original Musicby David Triana Web Productionby Eric Barch
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/worldfea.jpg2501200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-08-29 10:49:192019-08-29 10:49:19Steal This Show: ‘How To Hack A Democracy’
For roughly two decades, copyright holders have been sending takedown notices to ISPs to alert them that their subscribers are sharing copyrighted material.
Under US law, providers must terminate the accounts of repeat infringers “in appropriate circumstances” and increasingly they are being held to this standard.
Several major music industry companies have filed lawsuits against a variety of Internet providers. With help from the RIAA, the companies targeted Cox Communications, Grande Communications, and Charter, hoping to recoup damages for their role in the pirating activities of their subscribers.
The overall theme of these lawsuits is the same. The music companies accuse the ISPs of turning a blind eye to pirating subscribers. This is also made clear in a new complaint that was just filed against several ISPs that operate under the RCN brand.
The lawsuit is again filed by music companies, including Arista Music, Bad Boy Records, Capitol Records, Laface Records, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music, UMG Recordings, and Warner Records. Some of these are also involved in the aforementioned cases.
“This is a case about a leading internet service provider knowingly enabling its customers’ massive online copyright infringement of sound recordings,” the music companies allege in a complaint filed at a federal court in New Jersey.
“Defendants operated RCN as a haven for infringement. Defendants promoted RCN’s high internet speeds to customers, knowing that the ability to download copyrighted material illegally using high-speed internet, without repercussions, was a substantial draw for infringers,” they add.
The music companies state that RCN, including several local branches, willingly profited from keeping pirates on board. The ISP advertised high-speed internet which would be particularly appealing to BitTorrent pirates, it’s claimed.
“RCN provides its subscribers with a fully functioning system that allows them to engage in copyright infringement on a massive scale using BitTorrent networks,” the complaint reads.
“And for those subscribers who want to pirate more and larger files at faster speeds, RCN obliges them in return for higher fees. The greater the bandwidth its subscribers require for pirating content, the more money RCN receives.”
Current ‘speed’ mention on RCN.com
We have seen similar claims in related “repeat infringer” lawsuits. Previously it was pointed out that, while it is certainly true that high-speed Internet access is beneficial for pirates, legal users of streaming platforms such as Netflix would benefit as well.
The music companies, however, are convinced that the high speeds lure pirates to RCN. On top of that, they accuse the Internet provider of ignoring repeat infringers, so it can continue to profit from this piracy activity.
The music companies back up their claims with data from anti-piracy tracking company Rightscorp, which previously sent RCN more than five million infringement notices. These notices identified tens of thousands of alleged pirates.
Despite being aware of this copyright-infringing activity, RCN did nothing to stop it, the complaint notes. According to the Rightscorp data, 36,773 subscribers repeatedly engaged in piracy, with hundreds of these being flagged more than 1,000 times.
Since Rightscorp doesn’t monitor all activity, this is likely a small fraction of all the infringing activity occurring over RCN’s network, the music companies add. And despite the high number of repeat infringers, RCN did little to stop it.
“Defendants failed to take any meaningful action to discourage this wrongful conduct. Instead of terminating repeat infringers—and losing subscription revenue— RCN for years simply looked the other way and chose to allow the unlawful conduct to continue unabated.
“By ignoring the repeat infringement notifications and refusing to take action against repeat infringers, and instead providing those customers with ongoing internet service, Defendants made a deliberate decision to contribute to known copyright infringement,” the complaint adds.
In cases like this, Internet providers can generally rely on the DMCA safe harbor defense, which shields them from liability. However, the music companies argue that RCN lost this right by not having a properly functioning repeat infringer policy.
“Although RCN purported to adopt a policy to address repeat infringers, RCN in reality never adopted or reasonably implemented a policy that provided for the termination of repeat infringers—despite receiving over five million infringement notices. Its purported policy was a sham,” the complaint reads.
The allegations are very similar to the other “repeat infringer” lawsuits we have seen in the past. As in the other cases, the ISP is accused of both contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. The same also applies to RCN’s management company Patriot.
The music companies claim substantial losses for which they want to be compensated. They request actual damages or statutory damages of $150,000 per work. With an illustrative list of more than 1,000 tracks as evidence, a list that may grow even longer, the potential damages are already over $150 million.
—
A copy of the complaint, filed at the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, is available here (pdf).
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/radar-screen-display-feat.png2501200Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-08-29 00:48:322019-08-29 00:48:32Music Companies Sue Internet Provider RCN For Enabling ‘Massive’ Piracy
Movie and TV show content is widely available on the Internet for no cost but it seems that many thousands of individuals are prepared to pay for the privilege.
That has resulted in countless unlicensed subscription-based services appearing, some as part of live broadcast IPTV packages and others as standalone services.
Earlier this year it was revealed that the MPAA had made several referrals to the Department of Justice (DoJ), calling for some pirate streaming services to be criminally prosecuted. It now transpires that at least one of those referrals has come to fruition.
According to an announcement by the Department of Justice, eight individuals were indicted by a grand jury Tuesday for conspiring to violate criminal copyright law by running “two of the largest unauthorized streaming services in the United States.”
The indictment lists the following men as the defendants in the case;
Kristopher Lee Dallmann, 36; Darryl Julius Polo, aka djppimp, 36; Douglas M. Courson, 59; Felipe Garcia, 37; Jared Edward Jaurequi, aka Jared Edwards, 38; Peter H. Huber, 61; Yoany Vaillant, aka Yoany Vaillant Fajardo, 38; and Luis Angel Villarino, 40.
All are charged with running Jetflicks, a subscription-based TV show streaming service running out of Las Vegas, Nevada.
“The defendants reproduced tens of thousands of copyrighted television episodes without authorization, and distributed the infringing programs to tens of thousands of paid subscribers located throughout the U.S. At one point, Jetflicks claimed to have more than 183,200 different television episodes,” the DoJ states.
It’s further claimed that one of the defendants, Darryl Julius Polo, who was allegedly part of the Jetflicks programming team, left Jetflicks in order to create his own service, known online as iStreamItAll. According to the DoJ, the service claimed to have 115,849 television episodes and 10,511 movies available for streaming.
“Polo allegedly used many of the same automated tools that Jetflicks employed to locate, download, process and store illegal content, and then quickly make those television programs and movies available on servers in Canada to ISIA subscribers for streaming and/or downloading,” the DoJ adds.
In addition to the conspiracy charges, Dallman was charged with two counts of criminal copyright infringement by reproduction or distribution, two counts of criminal copyright by public performance and four counts of money laundering.
Polo was also charged with two counts of criminal copyright infringement by distributing a copyrighted work being prepared for commercial distribution, which usually refers to either then-unreleased movies or TV shows, or those that were yet to leave their theatrical window.
The alleged iStreamItAll operator was further charged with two counts of criminal copyright infringement by reproduction or distribution, two counts of criminal copyright infringement by public performance and four counts of money laundering.
Unsurprisingly, both services are alleged to have obtained their content from other ‘pirate’ sources, including The Pirate Bay and RARBG. The indictment also claims that Usenet and Torrentz were used as sources. The inclusion of the latter is somewhat unusual given that the site closed down in 2016 and even then was only a meta-search engine that offered no direct links to infringing content.
Both services were available after paying a subscription, with iStreamItAll claiming it had a greater range of content than Netflix, Hulu, Vudu and Amazon Prime, accessible on a range of devices from desktop machines through to phones, tablets, smart TVs, games consoles, and set-top boxes.
However, neither platform appears to have learned lessons from the still ongoing Megaupload case, where servers containing allegedly infringing content were mainly hosted in the United States. The DoJ claims that content culled from torrent sites and Usenet was made available to Jetflicks and iStreamItAll subscribers via servers hosted in both the United States and Canada.
https://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/arrest-feat.jpg00Dimitrologyhttps://dimitrology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WEBSITE-LOGO-2020-SMALL.pngDimitrology2019-08-28 14:47:142019-08-28 14:47:14Eight Men Behind Two Pirate Streaming Services Charged by Grand Jury
Here are part one and two of our chat with 
