Responding to a request from the US Department of Commerce, the RIAA submitted its views on several copyright infringement matters.

Specifically, it informed the Government about counterfeit and pirated goods that pass through online third-party marketplaces, and what can be done about that.

The music group sent a letter that encourages the Government to take action where possible. For example, by encouraging online platforms to share names and contact information of possible infringers.

In addition, the Government can also clarify when online intermediaries should be held liable for acts carried out by sellers of counterfeit and pirated goods.

When it comes to piracy and e-commerce platforms, the RIAA believes that any such changes should apply to mobile, Kodi or browser apps, and to the storefronts that distribute them. This refers to pirate apps on mobile stores, but also devices that are sold through Amazon and eBay.

“As online commerce goes increasingly mobile and distributed, there shouldn’t be different rules that apply to apps that can access the Internet via any connected device, as opposed to just the traditional website,” the RIAA writes.

When it comes to counterfeit goods, the RIAA is particularly concerned with large platforms that sell unauthorized music recordings. These counterfeit products are sold very frequently by large retailers, the music group explains.

This year, the RIAA conducted two studies into the sale of counterfeit music. For the first, it made various tests buys on Amazon and eBay, focusing on current and evergreen album titles released by major U.S. record labels.

This revealed that a significant portion of the CDs on these platforms are unauthorized. This is also true for the CDs that were marked as “fulfilled by Amazon.”

“The study showed that 16% of the CDs purchased via eBay were counterfeit, and 11% of the CDs purchased via Amazon were counterfeit. Alarmingly, 25% of the purchased CDs that were ‘Fulfilled by Amazon’ were counterfeit,” the RIAA writes.

In another study, the RIAA searched for “brand new” box sets of selected titles on eBay and AliExpress, and then bought the four lowest-priced box sets on each platform. The result, again, revealed that copyright infringement is rampant.

“On both eBay and AliExpress, 100% of the test buys of the box sets were counterfeit. This is of particular concern as box sets are premium physical music products designed for the superfan that often contain the most significant sound recordings in an artist’s repertoire,” the RIAA notes.

Where appropriate, platforms that willingly distribute copyright-infringing content should be held liable. At a minimum, these platforms should deter repeat infringers, the RIAA argues.

The music group hopes that the US Department of Commerce will take its findings and comments into account and come up with possible solutions to curb piracy and counterfeiting on online platforms.

—

A copy of the RIAA’s letter, providing input for the upcoming report on the state of counterfeit and pirated goods trafficking and recommendations, is available here (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Source link

Over the years, dozens of ‘pirate’ sites have suspended their operations for a wide range of reasons.

Pressure from rightsholders is perhaps the most common problem, but issues with hosting, domains, or even lack of time or resources have appeared high on the list.

Music search engine Slider.kz has a now cited a reason never heard before.

Slider.kz has been around for approximately nine years, having first appeared in 2010. It certainly doesn’t have the profile of some of today’s popular “stream-ripper” type sites but until recently has been quietly sourcing, indexing and making available for download thousands of tracks from its base in Kazakhstan.

Now, however, the site has problems. The issues are briefly outlined in a popup message when users first visit the site, which references problems with encryption.

Once the message goes away, users are met with the most recent version of the Slider.kz homepage, complete with the usual search box. But those hoping to download or stream music in the browser (Slider previously offered both options) are presented with a disappointing message.

The problems appear related to the news last month that the government in Kazakhstan has recently begun intercepting HTTPS traffic. According to reports, local Internet service providers have been ordered to force their subscribers to install root certificates issued by the government, something which would allow various agencies to intercept what would otherwise be secure web traffic.

“Pursuant to the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan On Communications and clause 11 of Rules for Issuing and Applying Security Certificates, Kcell JSC informs its customers of the need to install Security Certificate on devices capable of connecting to the Internet,” service provider Kcell told its customers in a recent announcement.

“According to law, telecom network operators are to ensure that customers with whom the operators have service contracts are able to install the security certificate on their mobile devices.”

The provider goes on to explain that the security certificate must be installed on all devices used to access the Internet (whether mobile or desktop-based) because if not, customers may face “technical limitations when accessing certain websites.”

Slider.kz does not currently have a security certificate and is running on basic HTTP, meaning that simply accessing the site isn’t a problem. However, Slider appears to index music sourced from elsewhere so it’s possible that the new regime in Kazakhstan is interfering with that in some way.

We have been unable to reach Slider’s operator for a more detailed explanation but we can confirm that at least some the 499 sample tracks compiled by the site’s operator (a small selection of what is usually available) stream directly from the site’s server, not from third-party sources.

All that being said, it’s possible that Slider may return, sooner rather than later. Local media reports are now suggesting that the government may be backtracking on its earlier requirement for citizens to install the security certificate. Only time will tell if this will completely solve Slider’s problems.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Source link

Blocking orders to prevent the distribution of copyright content are commonplace in several regions around the world.

In India, however, blocking injunctions are regularly handed down to protect specific movies, oftentimes before those movies are even released.

That is also the case with the movie ‘Nerkonda Paarvai’, a legal drama set to hit big screens worldwide today. In anticipation of this release, copyright holder Bayview LLP headed off to the Madras High Court, seeking a pre-emptive injunction to prevent the movie from being spread to the public for free via the Internet and other means.

The High Court hasn’t published the full details of the application, meaning that the list of sites set to be targeted hasn’t yet been revealed in public. It almost certainly contains one, if not many domains, operated by the notorious torrent site Tamilrockers, but the rest remain open to speculation.

What we do know is that a total of 39 Internet service providers were named as defendants in the order handed down this week by Justice Krishnan Ramasamy in the Madras High Court. The Judge acknowledges that the Bayview LLP production has been the subject of significant investment and is set to be released on more than 2,000 screens worldwide.

While it’s not uncommon to list ISPs as defendants in such cases, often noting that they play an unwitting role in the distribution of infringing content, the wording in the Judge’s order, which cites the plaintiff’s case, seems to go considerably further. Whether that’s entirely intentional is open to question.

“The learned counsel for applicant contended that the various cable and internet services provided by various persons (respondents 1–9) across the world are involved in activities of recording, cam-cording and reproducing the audio songs, audio-visual clips, audio-visual songs and full cinematographic films that are screened in theatres and then copying/reproducing them through various medium including but not limited to CDs, DVDs, VCDs, Blu-ray Discs, computer hard drives, pen drives etc.,and distribute the same for selling at a meager sum to the general public without any leave or authorization of the production houses/copyright holders/right holders such as the applicant herein,” the order reads.

Citing the above and referencing the application, the Judge said that in his opinion a prima facie case had been made for him to award a preliminary injunction which will continue until August 20, 2019.

The order, obtained by TorrentFreak, is available here (pdf). The full list of ISPs is detailed below.

1) BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED
2) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
3) Bharati Airtel Ltd.
4) Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly Idea Cellular Ltd.)
5) Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.
6) Atria Convergence Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
7) Hathway Cable and Datacom Ltd.
8) Tata Docomo
9) Asianet Satellite Communications
10) Tikona Digital Networks Pvt. Ltd.
11) You Broadband And Cable India Ltd.
12) Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd.
13) Rail Tel Corporation of India Ltd.
14) Shyam Spectra Pvt. Ltd.
15) Sify Technologies Ltd.
16) AT And T Global Network Service India Pvt. Ltd.
17) Peak Air Pvt. Ltd.
18) Knet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (Cherrinet)
19) Limras Eronet Broadband Services Pvt. Ltd.
20) SITI Networks Limited
21) Andhra Pradesh State Fibre Net Ltd.,
22) Raaj Internet (I) Pvt. Ltd.
23) Joister Infoserve Pvt. Ltd.
24) GTPL Hathway Ltd.
25) Ready Link Internet Service Ltd.
26) Nettlinx Limited
27) Excitel Broadband Pvt. Ltd.
28) Southern Online Bio Technologies Ltd.
29) Dawn Supports Pvt. Ltd.
30) Thalainagar Digital Cables (P) Ltd.
31) Cable Cast New Media Pvt. Ltd.
32) C32 Cable Net Pvt. Ltd.
33) Team 5 Network
34) SND Satellite Vision
35) Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd.
36) Asianet Digital Network Pvt. Ltd.
37) DEN Networks Ltd.
38) Starvision Cable TV Network
39) Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Source link

Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN is famous for taking on pirates both large and small. From The Pirate Bay to people dealing in IPTV boxes and sundry media, BREIN is rarely out of the headlines for long.

One of BREIN’s current strategies is to track down pirates, make them admit to their crimes, and then negotiate a settlement. This usually involves agreeing to cease-and-desist and handing over some kind of cash payment, to go towards any supposed losses incurred by its copyright holder partners and the costs of pursuing the case.

While some people keep to the agreed terms, others do not. BREIN says it doesn’t let these cases lie. Case in point, a man who sold pirated copies of eBooks in the Netherlands.

According to BREIN, the 38-year-old operated under the name Ebookplaza and Alexnav, selling thousands of eBooks via sites including Marktplaats.nl, Speurders.nl and Tweedehands.nl. This caught the attention of BREIN, who tracked the man down.

“Taking into account the man’s capacity to pay, BREIN reached a settlement consisting of a declaration of abstention with a penalty clause and a contribution to the costs of 450 euros,” BREIN said in a statement this morning.

BREIN believes its original offer to settle was reasonable but still, no payment was forthcoming. The man did not respond to reminders and a summons was returned marked as “address unknown.” But despite the relatively small settlement amount, BREIN wasn’t prepared to let the case go.

After discovering the man had protected his data with the authorities, BREIN took steps to find out where he now lived and after a procedure discovered he hadn’t moved away at all. BREIN sent in the bailiffs who were handed email ‘evidence’ that the case had been dismissed. According to the anti-piracy group, that email was faked.

“That the email was forged was not only apparent from the incorrect terminology – after all, it is not a criminal case – but in particular because the sender’s address was not in use at the time. BREIN then summoned the man. He did not appear at the session,” the anti-piracy group explained.

As a result, a judge sitting in Eindhoven has now awarded BREIN an even higher amount plus costs – 1,421 euros – with interest added on top until the date the amount is settled in full.

“This man got a very reasonable settlement and now he has to pay a lot more. We will not let him escape that,” says BREIN chief Tim Kuik.

“Whoever burns his buttocks must sit on the blisters.”

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Source link

In many countries around Europe and further afield, blocking pirate sites is carried out with permission from the courts.

The process is often long and expensive in the first instance but once a precedent has been set, subsequent blocking of additional sites should – at least in theory – be a much more simple affair.

Japan has been struggling to introduce a similar system for some time now but has continually come up against opposition from those who believe that monitoring Internet users’ traffic in order to block various domains amounts to a privacy breach.

The Telecommunications Business Act guarantees privacy of communications and prevents censorship, as does Article 21 of the Constitution.

Additional proposals suggested that Internet users could be confronted with popup warnings when they visit pirate sites, either as an alternative to blocking, a deterrent, or to help people differentiate them from legal offerings. However, that plan is being viewed as a potential invasion of privacy too.

A report compiled this week by an expert panel with the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications has concluded that such popup warnings could infringe citizens’ right to secrecy of communications.

Asahi reports that in order to make this kind of system work, Internet service providers would first need to obtain consent from their subscribers so that monitoring their attempts to access certain sites would remain legal.

The publication says that after the panel sought opinions from the public on the proposal, it was “bombarded by emails” sent by people calling for the plan to be rejected on privacy grounds.

Given that ISPs in other regions have complained that they shouldn’t bear the costs associated with blocking and similar regimes, it’s no surprise that some in Japan are taking a similar stance. Other providers indicate that they’re not ready from a technological standpoint, which of course is also closely connected with costs.

Nevertheless, some ISPs have agreed to begin trialing a popup warning system during the fall, in order to assess its effectiveness. That will mean them first having to explain to their users that they wish to monitor their online behavior and then obtain legal permission to do so.

Given a choice between being monitored by their ISP or not, it seems unlikely that many Internet users – if they actually understand the proposition – will willingly have someone watch over their communications.

And surely, visitors to pirate sites – the obvious targets of the campaign – will reject the offer immediately, if the purpose of the offer is made to clear to them in the beginning. That calls into question the entire point of the campaign, which is to assess whether warnings on pirate sites will deter their use.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Source link